Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Little Henry]

Saying OM does not exist but then saying "moral act X is wrong according to me" does not make sense.

Sure it does.  OM doesn't have to exist...and even if it does a person might not have access to it (you obviously don't, Mr "why cant i rape that girl and steal your house?"), but they can still tell you why they think that something is morally wrong.

Suppose you and i grab a tennis racket and ball. We go to a back street with no lines on the street.

You hit the ball, as soon as it bounces i scream "out". Naturally, you will say, "out according to what", i will say "according to me it is out".

You will then say "how can it be out, there is no line we never agreed on anything". I will say "according to me it is out".

So, in this example, what am i saying. There is nothing on the road, no lines, we never agreed on anything, how can i say the ball is out?

Moral disagreement exists.  Moral disagreement exists regardless of whether or not there is an objective morality..and two people both allegedly schlepping objective morality can also have a moral disagreement.  

But if OM doesnt exist, then as in the tennis example, they are just delusions in our heads.

If moral facts dont exist, then it is just like playing with no lines. Saying OM doesnt exist, but then claiming moral rights wrongs is admitting that we are all just suffering from a delusion, like the tennis game i used above in the back street.

Well, i must have some imaginary line in my head. This line does not exist in reality, it is just something i made up in my head that does not exist in reality.

In this case, i am suffering from a delusion, ie, i am acting in accordance to something that does not exist in reality.

I get that you think this matters, for some reason, but it doesn't.  You're under the impression, as a christer, that a ghost tells you what's right and wrong - but the fact that you're suffering from this delusion doesn't make it any more or less right or wrong to do x, either to you or to anyone else.

Of course it does...if no objective facts exist, then it is just something you made up. A man made construct.

According to you, a Theist is someone who is delusional because according to you, God does not exist and the Theist is imagining God exists  and is acting according to it.
Well, if OM does not exist, and then saying rape is wrong means you are no different to the Theist. It is just a mental construct you made in your head. It doesnt exist in reality and you act according to this delusion the same as the Theist does.

If OM does not exist, ie, moral facts, then claiming a moral act as wrong is the same as the tennis example. You are suffering from a delusion.

I'm not a moral subjectivist....but, okay, and?  It;s still wrong, to whomever thinks it's wrong, for whatever reason or non-reason they think it's wrong?  What's the problem?  

Ok, so you believe moral facts exist? If this is the case, we can stop arguing here and we can turn our attention to the grounding of these moral facts which will differ between you and i.

Now you might say, well, what if you drew a line and you both agreed where the line should start and stop, all of a sudden, the line exists in reality. Now we are talking. However, the line that you and i draw has no reference to reality. What do i mean by this. Well, if  you and i drew a line, it is just something we both made up from our heads and we are playing according to this construct.

The line doesn't exist in reality any more than it did before just because you agreed on it.  You simply agreed to conform to a particular delusion together (hey,. just like christers..ish).  

This is also how subjective moral theorists arrive at moral agreement.  

It is no different to you and i saying, lets pretend you and i are batman and superman. We can act as if we are batman and superman, but in reality we are not. We are just living according to some delusion that we made up. A mental construct.

If acting like a moral agent is not being a moral agent...then what is?  

It is made up if it doesnt exist in reality, like you and i pretending we are batman superman.

Thats all morality is if you want to say if OM does not exist, but want to live as if moral rights and wrongs exist.

Moral rights and moral wrongs exist in both objective -and- subjective moral views.  

This doesnt make sense.

If you say morality is subjective, according to me rape is wrong is just another way of saying, i am suffering from a delusion.

You -are- suffering from a delusion, and rape -is- wrong.  What's the problem?

The same way as when i said the ball is out when the ball was hit even though there is no line?

---

It was law to kill Jews, homosexuals, etc at one stage. No one says the law was wrong unless the society/theocracy of the day decided it was.
Why is it a fact that societies ought to flourish? It may be desirable but how does that make it a fact that they ought to? Evolution. If something won't flourish, then others will in their place. No consciousness needed. Just ask the black plague virus.
If i punch you in the face and it hurts you, why is that wrong? Why is it wrong to impose on others? Because others will also say that it feels bad, therefore not good.
You do have physical receptors in your skin/body to tell you if something feels good or bad, don't you? Nature gave you that.

So what if it doesnt flourish. Under naturalism, atheism, life came from the accidental bi product of lightning hitting some pond somewhere (that is 1 theory at least). How does that mean that it ought to flourish?
If humans and all living things were ceased tomorrow, did something wrong happen? bad happen?
Well, neither, under atheism, things just happen. You cannot get an OUGHT from an IS

---

But this is an illusion.

No it's not.  They really do think that some act x is wrong.  This isn't hard to understand. 

The same way as i really though the ball is out?

I say child rape is right, you say its wrong. Who is right or wrong?

I;m right, and you're wrong.  So very, very wrong.  I think that you'll find this to be the case most of the time.  

[quote pid='1573920' dateline='1498316478']
According to who or what am i wrong?Consider this.
I say the sun rotates around the earth, am i right or wrong? You say wrong. Tell me why i am wrong. Is it just or opinion or are you appealing to something outside your opinion?
I say rape is right, you say its wrong.  Tell me why i am wrong. Is it just or opinion or are you appealing to something outside your opinion?
[/quote]

We cannot be both right as this would violate one of the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

That's true, we can't both be right according to the same metrics simultaneously in contradiction to each other.  Not sure why it matters...since we're not both right, in this case.  I'm right, and you're wrong...so?

So you admit if something is subjective you cannot put a right or wrong against it?

To people cannot be both right with opposing views.

-in relation to a shared set of metrics..this is true, again, agreed...but again..it doesn't matter...sine we're not both right.  

So child rape is neither is right or wrong?

How can something be BOTH right and wrong? That violates one of the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

Who knows, but you're the only one babbling about it, contending that rape is somehow morally right.  

Just pointing out logical conclusion of it.

If something is subjective it cannot be deemed wrong.

OFC it can be.  Being subjective isn't some sort of magic talisman.

Law of non contradiction say it cannot be.

Taste in movies is subjective.
If i say the movie Taken 1 is better than Taken 2, am i right or wrong? Neither. It is incoherent to say i am right.
If you say Taken 2 is better than taken 1...then how can Taken 1 be both better and worse than Taken 2 at the same time.

You're wrong at a fundamental level, they both sucked, hard.  

I am sorry, but right or wrong only exist in relation to facts.

You keep saying that, but you don;t seem to understand that you're waffling back and forth between two senses of the word.

Look, this is getting unwieldy.  Rather than repeatedly tell people that they can;t do something that they so obviously can do, and rather than tell people that whatever it is they;re doing is incoherent without knowing the first thing about their reasons....why not just ask in a non douchebaggy way?  I told you at the outset I didn't think that morality is subjective....but your christer zeal must have missed that.  Think about how silly you look, after all these pages?  

What would jesus do?

(imma go grab a rental car right quick like, hopefully you'll find a way to improve the discourse by the time I get back)

Is that all now? You resort to mockery?

---

I am off to bed now.

I will check back later.