Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Amarok]

Yes Ruse atheist so what so is Jeffery jay Lowder ,Richard carrier  and lots of other atheists . Is Ruse the Pope of Atheism ?

[Thumpalumpacus]

God does not kill.

As the author of life he has the right to remove anyone from this temporal existence to another existence as he sees fit.

Still practicing moral subjectivity, and adding semantics into the mix. Good times!

[RoadRunner79]

God does not kill.

As the author of life he has the right to remove anyone from this temporal existence to another existence as he sees fit.

Still practicing moral subjectivity, and adding semantics into the mix. Good times!

Haven't been following for a while, but this is the wrong type of subjectivity, as far as the problem of good arguement. It's not about epistemology or how you know.

[Whateverist]

You guys need to read more of Michael Ruse

"Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will—or in the metaphorical roots of evolution or any other part of the framework of the Universe. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Ethics is produced by evolution but is not justified by it because, like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.…Unlike Macbeth’s dagger, ethics is a shared illusion of the human race.16"

Again, if you dont believe in OMVs, then everytime you say acts like rape and torture are wrong, you are sufferring from an illusion.

You seem to cling to this like a security blanket.  Go ahead give that thumb a good suck while you clutch it.  Does it help with what must be enormous cognitive dissonance?

[Amarok]

And once again there is no conflict between objecting to rape and torture and saying it's subjective . And Once again Ruse isn't the final authority on morality. Just because he happens to be an atheist.

[Edwardo Piet]

Still practicing moral subjectivity, and adding semantics into the mix. Good times!

Haven't been following for a while, but this is the wrong type of subjectivity, as far as the problem of good arguement. It's not about epistemology or how you know.

You've got it completely backwards. Moral epistemology makes sense; moral ontology doesn't.

[Amarok]

umm .. I disagree but ...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Still practicing moral subjectivity, and adding semantics into the mix. Good times!

Haven't been following for a while, but this is the wrong type of subjectivity, as far as the problem of good arguement. It's not about epistemology or how you know.

That's a lot of syllables for a dodge. "Cool story, bro" is much more compact and efficient.

Or, you could actually address my point, which is that setting your god's actions in a different moral context than the actions of humans is quite plainly practicing moral subjectivity -- the morality of an action (in this case, killing) being dependent on who is doing it.

Over to you. Hopefully you'll have a higher syllable-to-content ratio.

[RoadRunner79]

Haven't been following for a while, but this is the wrong type of subjectivity, as far as the problem of good arguement. It's not about epistemology or how you know.

That's a lot of syllables for a dodge. "Cool story, bro" is much more compact and efficient.

Or, you could actually address my point, which is that setting your god's actions in a different moral context than the actions of humans is quite plainly practicing moral subjectivity -- the morality of an action (in this case, killing) being dependent on who is doing it.

Over to you. Hopefully you'll have a higher syllable-to-content ratio.

Ok.... What you are describing still doesn't make it subjective ontologically. This could be a problem with equating objective with absolute, or subjective with relative. For instance if we are talking about hair color of a particular person. The color of the hair is objective. It does not change even if you and I disagree on what that color is. It is also relative, as it depends on the person, that we are talking about.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's a lot of syllables for a dodge. "Cool story, bro" is much more compact and efficient.

Or, you could actually address my point, which is that setting your god's actions in a different moral context than the actions of humans is quite plainly practicing moral subjectivity -- the morality of an action (in this case, killing) being dependent on who is doing it.

Over to you. Hopefully you'll have a higher syllable-to-content ratio.

Ok.... What you are describing still doesn't make it subjective ontologically. This could be a problem with equating objective with absolute, or subjective with relative. For instance if we are talking about hair color of a particular person. The color of the hair is objective. It does not change even if you and I disagree on what that color is. It is also relative, as it depends on the person, that we are talking about.

Why are you talking about hair? I'm talking about moral subjectivity. Do you really not grasp that?

If you are using different value judgements for the same act based on who the actor is, you are practicing moral relativity. This horseshit about ontology is irrelevant.