Morality

[Acrobat]

"Is seen with an effort"...? Is Plato referring to the "effort" it takes to believe a dogma when it is presented to you? Or is he referring to something else?

No, he’s referring to the effort to see The Good. And by this he doesn’t mean, that it takes such effort to see what’s right, but the ultimate root, or source of such perception. Our perception of what’s right, is like seeing light from the sun, but not the sun itself, it takes considerable effort to see the sun.

“. It cannot be clearly seen or explained, but once it is recognized, it is the form that allows one to realize all the other forms.”

[Abaddon_ire]

the best thing to do is separate them from the bigoted, homophobic, and backwards nonsense

The backwards nonsense like what, homosexuality? Is that all?  U call people homophobes if they don't agree with your opinion. That is the definition of bigoted.

Which you immediately follow up with this display of abject bigotry...

Homosexuality and gender dysphoria can do what they like. MYOB. But they dont. Their doing their gay parades with their banners, publicly displaying it.

Not content with that you conflate them with...

Their mental disorders like necrophiliality and pedosexuality.

As though they were one and the same.

Im a strong believer in not exposing children to sexual content, information and material of any kind. Especially not encouraging them to become fags and trannies.

Step real carefully, pal. My eldest is trans and I volunteer for the trans support line in my spare time. Morally bankrupt people like you are the single biggest cause of anxiety.

[vulcanlogician]

"Is seen with an effort"...? Is Plato referring to the "effort" it takes to believe a dogma when it is presented to you? Or is he referring to something else?

No, he’s referring to the effort to see The Good. And by this he doesn’t mean, that it takes such effort to see what’s right, but  the ultimate root, or source of such perception. Our perception of what’s right, is like seeing light from the sun, but not the sun itself, it takes considerable effort to see the sun.

“. It cannot be clearly seen or explained, but once it is recognized, it is the form that allows one to realize all the other forms.”

So, if you accept Plato's bit of wisdom here, then you may want to rethink the idea that only theists can be moral realists. 

Atheists can recognize the Good as well as any believer can. Some things might even work in the atheist's favor in trying to recognize the Good, such as not being bewildered by dogma. An atheist can search for the Good armed with only a sincere heart and mind. At the very least, I will say that an atheist is at no disadvantage when trying to distinguish the good from the not good. At the very least, they are just as able to distinguish an objective morality as a believer.

Edit: Since you also seem confused about what an atheist might consider moral facts, here is an argument I've put forth here before (from a paper found in the disclosed link):

---

(1) A property P is genuine if it figures ineliminably in a good explanation of observed
phenomena.
(2) Moral properties figure ineliminably in good explanations of observed phenomena.
Therefore
(3) Moral properties are genuine.

The ability of putative moral properties to feature in good explanations is one perennially attractive argument in favour of the metaphysical claims of realism. The initially attractive thought is that moral properties earn their ontological rights in the same way as the metaphysically unproblematic properties of the natural and social sciences, namely by figuring in good explanatory theories. So just as, for example, a physicist may explain why an oil droplet stays suspended in an electro-magnetic field by citing its charge, or a social scientist may explain high levels of mental illness by citing income inequality, a ‘moral scientist’ may explain the growth of political protest movements or social instability by citing injustice. Likewise, just as an observer of the physicist may explain why he believes that the oil droplet is charged by citing the charge itself, and an observer of the sociologist may explain why she believes that income inequality exists by citing the inequality itself, an observer of the ‘moral scientist’ may explain why they believe that a situation is unjust by citing the injustice itself. In such cases, it appears that the instantiation of a moral property – injustice – is causally relevant in producing an effect – a political protest movement or moral judgement.

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1930/1/T...prints.pdf

---

[Brian37]

No, he’s referring to the effort to see The Good. And by this he doesn’t mean, that it takes such effort to see what’s right, but  the ultimate root, or source of such perception. Our perception of what’s right, is like seeing light from the sun, but not the sun itself, it takes considerable effort to see the sun.

“. It cannot be clearly seen or explained, but once it is recognized, it is the form that allows one to realize all the other forms.”

So, if you accept Plato's bit of wisdom here, then you may want to rethink the idea that only theists can be moral realists. 

Atheists can recognize the Good as well as any believer can. Some things might even work in the atheist's favor in trying to recognize the Good, such as not being bewildered by dogma. An atheist can search for the Good armed with only a sincere heart and mind. At the very least, I will say that an atheist is at no disadvantage when trying to distinguish the good from the not good. At the very least, they are just as able to distinguish an objective morality as a believer.

I really wouldn't try to argue "atheist" are better. "Off" is a mere position. It does not denote a moral code, or a class, political view, or economic view.

The real argument to be made is that when better data comes in, you adapt that data and scrap the older bad data.

FYI Plato did not get everything right himself. Plato got the idea of questioning right, but he still did not have benefit of modern scientific method. If you read the preface to "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins, in it he explains, much of humanity's chase for a utopia infected religious and political thinking with his idea of "Essence". The idea for Plato was that if you simply thought about something long enough you could find that perfect thing.  IE, "essence of rabbit" or "essence of chair". Unfortunately that idea of the perfect thing bled into religious and political thought.

I would say that humanity would do better without old mythology. I don't mean erasing history, we should not do that. But we should learn from our mistakes as a species and leave bad claims behind.

If all 7 billion humans were suddenly atheists, we would still have our differences and groups and conflicts. Our species behaviors are not in a label, but in our evolution.

[vulcanlogician]

I really wouldn't try to argue "atheist" are better. "Off" is a mere position. It does not denote a moral code, or a class, political view, or economic view.

The real argument to be made is that when better data comes in, you adapt that data and scrap the older bad data.

FYI Plato did not get everything right himself. Plato got the idea of questioning right, but he still did not have benefit of modern scientific method. If you read the preface to "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins, in it he explains, much of humanity's chase for a utopia infected religious and political thinking with his idea of "Essence". The idea for Plato was that if you simply thought about something long enough you could find that perfect thing.  IE, "essence of rabbit" or "essence of chair". Unfortunately that idea of the perfect thing bled into religious and political thought.

I would say that humanity would do better without old mythology. I don't mean erasing history, we should not do that. But we should learn from our mistakes as a species and leave bad claims behind.

If all 7 billion humans were suddenly atheists, we would still have our differences and groups and conflicts. Our species behaviors are not in a label, but in our evolution.

Sure. I don't think I've said anything contrary to what you've said. I posited that atheists were no worse off than theists in the search for moral facts, but our nonadherence to dogma might (perhaps) work in our favor.

I don't think any modern reader of Plato considers Plato an authority. Even ancient Platonists knew better than that!

Plato was obviously wrong about a great many things. But his approach to values is pretty compelling, even if his metaphysics might have lead us down the wrong path. As you pointed out, the most valuable thing Plato taught was to question all assumptions. I don't think that Plato exempted his own ideas. My favorite thing about Plato is that he invites you to disagree with him.

[Brian37]

I really wouldn't try to argue "atheist" are better. "Off" is a mere position. It does not denote a moral code, or a class, political view, or economic view.

The real argument to be made is that when better data comes in, you adapt that data and scrap the older bad data.

FYI Plato did not get everything right himself. Plato got the idea of questioning right, but he still did not have benefit of modern scientific method. If you read the preface to "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins, in it he explains, much of humanity's chase for a utopia infected religious and political thinking with his idea of "Essence". The idea for Plato was that if you simply thought about something long enough you could find that perfect thing.  IE, "essence of rabbit" or "essence of chair". Unfortunately that idea of the perfect thing bled into religious and political thought.

I would say that humanity would do better without old mythology. I don't mean erasing history, we should not do that. But we should learn from our mistakes as a species and leave bad claims behind.

If all 7 billion humans were suddenly atheists, we would still have our differences and groups and conflicts. Our species behaviors are not in a label, but in our evolution.

Sure. I don't think I've said anything contrary to what you've said. I posited that atheists were no worse off than theists in the search for moral facts, but our nonadherence to dogma might (perhaps) work in our favor.

I don't think any modern reader of Plato considers Plato an authority. Even ancient Platonists knew better than that!

Plato was obviously wrong about a great many things. But his approach to values is pretty compelling, even if his metaphysics might have lead us down the wrong path. As you pointed out, the most valuable thing Plato taught was to question all assumptions. I don't think that Plato exempted his own ideas. My favorite thing about Plato is that he invites you to disagree with him.

Plato was a human, and finite like the rest of us. I would not suggest ever claiming there is a method to morality, especially knowing that changes in our species over time. 

Even the ancient Romans and Greeks owned slaves. Not claiming he did personally, but slavery was worldwide back then. 

I'd say that our modern understanding of things like evolutionary biology, sociology, neurology and psychology and psychiatry give us a better understanding of how humans group, how they behave, not Plato.

Again, Plato did contribute some useful things to humanity, but again, he didn't get everything right. "Essence" was a bad idea and human thought suffered as a result of that idea.

Just in the same way that Newton got physics right but Alchemy was junk. Imagine if Newton had scrapped physics and stuck to alchemy? 

Point is morality isn't of an era, nor a patent you can point to in one point in time to one human or one label. Our species has always displayed both cruelty and compassion. I think that is better understood through modern methods than ancient philosophy or mythology.

Humans will never stop having conflicts or crime to some degree. I'd say morality is anything that would seek to reduce harm to others, but outside that, it isn't something you can pin on one person or one nation or one label.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Is seen with an effort"...? Is Plato referring to the "effort" it takes to believe a dogma when it is presented to you? Or is he referring to something else?

No, he’s referring to the effort to see The Good. And by this he doesn’t mean, that it takes such effort to see what’s right, but  the ultimate root, or source of such perception. Our perception of what’s right, is like seeing light from the sun, but not the sun itself, it takes considerable effort to see the sun.

“. It cannot be clearly seen or explained, but once it is recognized, it is the form that allows one to realize all the other forms.”

Non-natural realism.  That's usually where I start with realism no matter who's asking.  I'll even add the proviso that it doesn't always take great effort.  I arrange it in the reverse, however.  Let's you and I go watch the gang beating of a small child.  I wager that I won't need to explain anything at all.  The force of the observation will signify the thing we call "The Bad".  If we know "The Bad" - that which those terms signify, can see and observe and intuitively recognize it, then...by extension, we can understand the good (I'd make a second wager that the good and the bad, at least in archetypal forms, are equally recognizable). We can point at either representative and say "this, this is what I mean when I say x, do you understand?" - and the answer will be affirmative.

[Angrboda]

I spent my childhood running from bullies, and that in turn cased me to be destructive as a teen. I am lucky, I outgrew it. 

And no, I didn't "suggest" I stated it did change me for the positive.

And don't try to play shrink with me ok? I am a very kind person, but also a person who can smell BS at the same time.

I apologize if you took anything I said personally, or as any type of judgement of you as a person.

I don’t know you, but I’m sure you’re  a decent dude, I doubt the conclusion that school made you a more moral person, not that you’re not a good person, but that’s okay I won’t push the questions any further.

Being a good person to me is simple. Don't get violent with others, and don't judge them because of their pay or class Outside that, yes

In my view that’s a pretty weak concept of a good person, an apathetic person, could fit the bill.

Being good in my view is being a person of good character, kind, honest, compassionate, considerate, humble, courageous, etc.. in fact I’d say moral courage is a big one, to stand up for what’s right when needed.

Raising a daughter, i value her being a good person, over being smart. I rather have a good child, a kind and loving one, than a scientific genius.

Why do you think we have different morals now than, say, those we had 2,000 years ago?

[The Grand Nudger]

There's an interesting sidline in the quoted text above.  The notion of a "good person" as apathetic is unsatisfactory, but not for any discernible reason.  If a persons apathy lead them, through lack of interest, to not doing The Bad Things(tms) then it's unclear how they could be anything other than a good person, even if it's the weakest form of a "good person" we can think of.  We like to see people take affirmative steps towards the good rather than blunder into it through indifference or accident, but there's no wholly compelling argument as to why an indifferent or accidentally good person is not good, or less good..than an intentional or engaged one. Is the fool less blessed than the magus?

Additionally, while the q above wasn't directed at me, I'll answer from a realists pov - fully expecting that the religious answer will be garbage, lol.

The difference in moralities between fully modern humans (the sum total of the relativist position) can be accounted for by difference in empirical, rather than moral, understanding.  In effect, we don't disagree on the moral facts, we disagree on the empirical facts with factual moral relevance.  In this understanding, any person from any time could be made to understand, internally, why some x is right or wrong (or taken to be so) regardless of whether or not it was considered right or wrong in their own time (or, even if x was completely unknown)..supposing we provide them with the relevant empirical facts. It's no different than moving from one country (and their laws) to another (and theirs) - but through time, rather than geography.

The phrase "harm is bad", for example... is so broad as to encompass a wide range of potential actions and effects. You won't find a human culture without that precept (or it;s analog) - though we routinely find (and are, ourselves) cultures who do not appreciate or understand what harm they do. Non natural realists insist that this is what is being referred to in moral discussions, and that potential difference of empirical fact is not directly relevant or informative as regards hypothetical differences of moral fact. This, in short, is why differences of moral opinion are not seen to be challenging to moral realism in the slightest. We disagree about everything.

[Angrboda]

“It has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behavior, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found.” - Michael Gazzaniga

That's a fascinating quote. Unfortunately it seems to leave open the question of whether moral intuitions are not based upon any reasoning whatsoever, both conscious and unconscious, or whether it's just an expression of the fact that unconscious reasoning about morals is privileged over that of explicit, conscious reasoning. If the latter is true, this doesn't lead to the place you seem to want to go with it.