Morality

[Acrobat]

No, I’d be a platonic theist. I’d be a theist that doesn’t subscribe to any particular religion.

IOW you made a misleading claim about your moral positions.  You would have to retain -some- of your christian beliefs, such as the belief in a god.  Well, that actually doesn't prevent your moral positions from being secular either...but I think that you're trying to walk this one back...so we'll go with the new line.  

No, I haven’t walked anything back. Subscribing to platonic theism, doesn’t require me to subscribe to Christian beliefs as well.

Moral facts are incapable of setting deontological borders, they just don't possess that ability any more than they possess the agency required to effect such a thing.  They're just true statements with a moral import.  

I'll only go over this one more time..and then I'll expect you to understand moving forward.  In order to derive an ought..a deontological border..from an is, a moral fact..at least one evaluative premise must be supplied.  This is  non negotiable.  This is the is-ought distinction.  We supply these premises.  We don't find them out there in the way that we find those moral facts to which we refer*.  

I’m not sure how you’re resolving the is/ought problem, you seem to sneakily shift from a set of factual proposition such as x is “harmful”, to evaluative proposition, x is morally bad, and then stating the evaluative proposition is a fact. And appear oblivious as to why this is a problem.

You're not a moral realist.  You don't refer to moral facts, you refer to purported god facts.  I don't know why everything would be permissible just because fairies aren't watching you piss. 

No the fairies usually close their eyes when I’m peeing.

If there’s nothing truly right or wrong about anything, than everything is permissible.

Obviously, if the moral structure that you appeal to is god fact based rather than moral fact based then the absence of a god would hollow out your moral system.  Since mine isn;t god fact based...it won;t have that effect on me.  

No, I’m pointing out the one you’re trying to sell me in place of it is hallow, built with straws.

Like I said, some people can't be compelled.  We have bricks and cages for people like that...and it sounds like you'd need one..if you ever lost your faith.

This is perhaps the most interesting thing you’ve said. I only indicated a sort of nihilistic moral outlook that I would hold, I didn’t really say much about how I’d behave. So clearly the idea of people holding such a nihilistic moral outlook appear to you as sociopaths. The sort of people we should consider putting in bricks and cages. And I’m somewhat in agreement with you that we should be worried about people who hold such views, luckily for you I don’t.

But notice one thing you haven’t done? You at no point, have ever indicated why such beliefs are false. Nothing you said negates this nihilistic position. Yet, you seem aware that both this nihilistic position and moral realism can’t be true. All you’ve ever managed to say is that you probably couldn’t pursued them to join your team, but you haven’t been able to argue that their beliefs are false.

---

Does that answer your question?

The only thing I was trying to convey, is if you say you believe in big foot, but just don't believe he's big of hairy, or lives in the woods, there's a point in which thing you say you believe in, no longer resembles what you actually believe in. Keep this mind as we proceed.

" the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed."

Do you believe as Plato did, that Good is the universal author of all things beautiful and right, the immediate source of reason and of reason and truth, etc...?


Do you subscribe to the beliefs of Plato indicated below
:

"So, the Form of the Good is more real, even, than the rest of the Forms: the realest and most fundamental thing that exists, the cause of the Forms and the explanation of the rational order of the universe. It resembles a divine logos, or divine rationality, which became an object of worship for successive schools of philosophy that developed under the influence of Plato’s ideas."

https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/1...-the-good/

"Plato was a moral realist who thought that there are ideal forms (abstract objects) that exist in the world as ideal “perfect” things. There’s perfect goodness, perfect virtue, perfect courage, and so on. In some sense what ought to be the case really does exist—as the forms. We can somehow know these forms through contemplation or intuition. For Plato certain forms are “moral facts” that exist in a way similar to any other state of affairs. We ought to acquire characteristics of the forms, such as goodness, virtue, justice, wisdom, and moderation. Once we have those characteristics (perfections or virtues), we will do what we morally ought to. No one acquires virtues completely, and people who do so well are better people who don’t.

Simply put, the Platonic solution is that what ought to be the case is based primarily on actually existing abstract objects, and we are “what ought to be” insofar as we approximate these objects. What we ought to do is based on what we will do naturally once we are perfect."

https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/201...t-from-is/

Gae, while claiming he's a moral realist, believes that moral oughts are human constructs. That there is no external reality, independent of us, that places moral aims/oughts on us. There's no actual "Good" that exists out there, that this at best a human construct at. There's no reality independent of us that indicates how we ought to morally behave or live. Do you agree with him?

[The Grand Nudger]

IOW you made a misleading claim about your moral positions.  You would have to retain -some- of your christian beliefs, such as the belief in a god.  Well, that actually doesn't prevent your moral positions from being secular either...but I think that you're trying to walk this one back...so we'll go with the new line.  

No, I haven’t walked anything back. Subscribing to platonic theism, doesn’t require me to subscribe to Christian beliefs as well.

-woosh.

Moral facts are incapable of setting deontological borders, they just don't possess that ability any more than they possess the agency required to effect such a thing.  They're just true statements with a moral import.  

I'll only go over this one more time..and then I'll expect you to understand moving forward.  In order to derive an ought..a deontological border..from an is, a moral fact..at least one evaluative premise must be supplied.  This is  non negotiable.  This is the is-ought distinction.  We supply these premises.  We don't find them out there in the way that we find those moral facts to which we refer*.  

I’m not sure how you’re  resolving the is/ought problem, you seem to sneakily shift from a set of factual proposition such as x is “harmful”, to evaluative proposition, x is morally bad, and then stating the evaluative proposition is a fact. And appear oblivious as to why this is a problem.

What do you mean sneakily?  I keep telling you that the is ought distinction flatly states that we require at least one evaluative premise derive an ought from an is - and that we seek to supply these premises, and do supply these premises.  

You're not a moral realist.  You don't refer to moral facts, you refer to purported god facts.  I don't know why everything would be permissible just because fairies aren't watching you piss. 

No the fairies usually close their eyes when I’m peeing.

If there’s nothing truly right or wrong about anything, than everything is permissible.

Who said there wasn't anything truly right or wrong about anything?  I only posited a situation in which there were no fairies.  If this, to you, suggests a situation in which nothing is truly right or wrong...from the perspective of a moral realist, that's something that requires a bit of an explanation, lol.  

Obviously, if the moral structure that you appeal to is god fact based rather than moral fact based then the absence of a god would hollow out your moral system.  Since mine isn;t god fact based...it won;t have that effect on me.  

No, I’m pointing out the one you’re  trying to sell me in place of it is hallow, built with straws.

What am I trying to sell you?  Moral realism?  

Like I said, some people can't be compelled.  We have bricks and cages for people like that...and it sounds like you'd need one..if you ever lost your faith.

This is perhaps the most interesting thing you’ve said. I only indicated a sort of nihilistic moral outlook that I would hold, I didn’t really say much about how I’d behave. So clearly the idea of people holding such a nihilistic moral outlook appear to you as sociopaths. The sort of people we should consider putting in bricks and cages. And I’m somewhat in agreement with you that we should be worried about people who hold such views, luckily for you I don’t.

Yes, lucky for me you don't....but only lucky so long as you remain faithful......and that's been declining of late, lol.

But notice one thing you haven’t done? You at no point, have ever indicated why such beliefs are false. Nothing you said negates this nihilistic position. Yet, you seem aware that both this nihilistic position and moral realism can’t be true. All you’ve ever managed to say is that you probably couldn’t pursued them to join your team, but you haven’t been able to argue that their beliefs are false.

Is there some specific objection to moral realism that you think is compelling, coming from the nihilist camp, that we haven't already discussed?

[Acrobat]

What do you mean sneakily?  I keep telling you that the is ought distinction flatly states that we require at least one evaluative premise derive an ought from an is - and that we seek to supply these premises, and do supply these premises.  

Let’s go over this slowly for you.

Moral realism, implies that moral facts and values exist objectively, independent of our perceptions of them or our beliefs, feelings, or attitudes towards them.

You claim that the proposition the holocaust is morally wrong is a moral fact, which is not the same as saying the holocaust was harmful, is a fact. The former is an evaluative proposition, the latter is a factual proposition.

Follow me?

Adding your own evaluative elements to a factual proposition, doesn’t make your evaluative elements facts. Anymore so then calling cheesy pizza good, makes it a fact that cheesy pizza is good.

You claim that the holocaust being morally bad, is objectively true, that this is a moral fact. The moral nihilist indicate this is false, because evaluative propositions don’t exist objectively, because facts don’t possess intrinsic evaluative components. At best we have subjective, or relativistic evaluative elements attached by people such as yourself. The evaluative aspects exist as a result of our beliefs, feelings, and attitudes, and our perceptions, and are not independent of them, as moral realism implies.

Now tell me how this nihilist is wrong?

[DLJ]

...
I recommend leaving terms like “subjective” and “objective” our the equation completely. That’s 18th century thinking and again, weak semantics.

Well I mean it as "objective". That the wrongness of something exists as objectively as the yellow of my wife's dress, as 1+1 = 2, independent of you or I.
...

Ya but, 1+1=10.

[Acrobat]

Well I mean it as "objective". That the wrongness of something exists as objectively as the yellow of my wife's dress, as 1+1 = 2, independent of you or I.
...

Ya but, 1+1=10.

Not with base 10.

[DLJ]

Ya but, 1+1=10.

Not with base 10.

What base do we use for x = wrong?

[Acrobat]

Not with base 10.

What base do we use for x = wrong?

Don’t know.

[The Grand Nudger]

You claim that the holocaust being morally bad, is objectively true, that this is a moral fact. The moral nihilist indicate this is false, because evaluative propositions don’t exist objectively, because facts don’t possess intrinsic evaluative components. At best we have subjective, or relativistic evaluative elements attached by people such as yourself. The evaluative aspects exist as a result of our beliefs, feelings, and attitudes, and  our perceptions, and are not independent of them, as moral realism implies.

Now tell me how this nihilist is wrong?

Why would it matter if evaluative propositions " objectively exist"?  That the holocaust is wrong refers to a moral fact, not an evaluative premise.   They do, ofc, objectively exist, lol. Perhaps he would prefer to argue that they were -wrong-, not that they were non-existent, lol. Your poor nihilist is confused, which is strange, since I explained this to him so many times already.

Evaluative premises are required to derive an ought, not a moral fact. Moral facts are either recognized or directly observed, depending on who you ask.

Now, if I had told our nihilist friend..."so you shouldn't do that" then, then, he could quibble about evaluative premises..which, again, do "objectively exist"(lol?)........but..again, we have cages and bricks for that kind of "nihilist".

Do you find that the objections above cause you to doubt your divine morality in the way they cause you to doubt moral realism?

[Acrobat]

That the holocaust is wrong refers to a moral fact, not an evaluative premise.   

Well here’s your problem.

The holocaust is morally bad/wrong is an evaluative proposition, by definition.

It involves a value judgement, “bad”, and is therefore an evaluative proposition.

[Brian37]

That the holocaust is wrong refers to a moral fact, not an evaluative premise.   

Well here’s your problem.

The holocaust is morally bad/wrong is an evaluative proposition, by definition.

It involves a value  judgement, “bad”, and is therefore an evaluative proposition.

Sorry but by arguing "Without God, humans cant be good" is just a gap answer. I don't need a sky wizard to know that Hitler was evil and genocide is wrong.