If it wasn't for religion

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, even If i sucked at discerning all the elements that compose the things that I find taste good, it’s possible that I could feed a computer with all the different foods that I like, and it churns out a variety of things to try, with a high predictably that I’d find those things to be good as well.

This seems to be true of all our subjective preferences, like music, fashion, movies, the sort of people we find good looking, ugly etc.

Sure.  

All the things that go into the good category and bad category, are based on a variety of physical traits and criteria of the things being categorized one way or the other. You’ll find bland foods in the bad category, spicy and sweet foods in the good category, dark skinned, skinny girls in the good category, fat, pail girls in the bad category. Music that sounds like Justin Bieber in the good category, music that sounds like death metal in the bad category.

Sure

If we applied your logic, at the end of the day all the things that would have fallen into the subjective category, would now fall under the objective category, without no real substance difference taking place in this transition.

Nope.  Why are you so committed to shitting the bed?  The categories are simple and self defining. Subjective facts are mind dependent, objective facts are not. Both are facts, one set are facts of a person, the other facts of a matter. Colloqually, we call one set facts and one set opinions.

Good becomes a property of the objects themselves. Justin Bieber being a good musician becomes an objective fact, and no longer a subjective preference.

Still fishing.

He -is- an objectively good musician..even if you don't like him.  That's why he's rich and in music..and you're poor and not.  

This, above, is an artifact of using objective criteria as the certifying empirical fact, rather than your opinions as the certifying fact. Moral realism works much the same way. There are many criteria by which we may call something "good" or "bad"...a great many of which simply are subjective. That doesn't mean that they all are, or that any use of the term must by necessity be.

I'm not going to humor you for another post unless this becomes a two way relationship. Confront the fact that you made a statement in ignorance, knowing nothing about me, my morality, secularism, or moral realism.

[Acrobat]

Nope. Why are you so committed to shitting the bed? The categories are simple and self defining. Subjective facts are mind dependent, objective facts are not. Both are facts, one set are facts of a person, the other facts of a matter. Colloqually, we call one set facts and one set opinions.

The the level of crispness, the ratio of meat to cheese, which are the existing referents of good, are mind independent. They exist independent of my mind. The criteria of things that go into the category of good here, are mind independent.

so why does your good get its own special status, when mine doesn’t when it follows the same logic.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't know the realists answer to that question.  Therefore you couldn't possibly comment on it being contradictory, incoherent, or delusional.

[Acrobat]

You don't know the realists answer to that question.  Therefore you couldn't possibly comment on it being contradictory, incoherent, or delusional.

No you provided all the basic components, outlined the logic in painstaking detail.

Leaving you no defense, after I took a dump all over it by applying it to dominos pizza, lol.

Come on humor me more, I enjoyed this.

[Acrobat]

Are you saying that the thought of people getting mass murdered doesn't make you sick? sad? disgusted? Revolted? angry?... All of the above and more?
Can you envisage "wrong" just being a label for when we perceive some action to activate a given number, or some particular set of these emotions?

Like the revulsion we feel at the thought of a sexual encounter between siblings.
Like the anger we feel at seeing someone hit someone weaker? "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?"
Like anger towards injustice.
Like many things that you'd put under the umbrella of morality, but, under the hood, they're formed of emotions.

People’s feeling are finicky. The first couple of times you hear about a mass shooting you might feel strongly sick, sad, disgusted, revolted, angry, but at some point, by about the 10th or 15th, it just like “ah another school shooting, so what else is new”. It’s not going spoil my morning coffee, or my trip to Disneyland. But just cause your actual emotional reactions to it have changed, doesn’t make it any less wrong.

In fact if I were to read about some mass murder taking place by Isis in Iraq, or some place in Africa right now, which there possibly is, my emotional state is pretty neutral, not much different after reading about it, as it was before.

Now if my friends, or family members where being mass murdered, i’d be overwhelmed with emotions, crippled by grief, etc....

But yet, It’s still wrong, regardless if it’s my family or people that I don’t know personally, even absent of any real emotional reaction to it.

Empathy is also finicky, people tend to feel more empathetic towards those that look like them, than those that don’t. If you take a white person, show them a video of another white person getting an injection, and a video of a black person getting injection, they have more of an empathetic response to the white person, than the black person. White people feel more empathy when a person skin is white, then when it’s black, and vice versa.

But what I mean is that those on the other side of the globe are just as faceless and nameless as those who live on the next village. And, if I can empathize with the ones closer, I can do it too to those who are far away.

Not nearly in the same way. You empathize far more superficially with some faceless nameless people in a village, than you do your own village, or people of your own skin color, race, background, etc…

Since you like to give examples of stuff, picture this hypothetical: imagine you, as a human being were not a social animal. You are an animal that wants to survive and breed, no concern whatsoever about society, no concept even of what that is. Like a puma, totally alone for the great majority of your life. What sort of moral belief would you have under this scenario?
Or better, would you even possess the concept of "morality"?

Yes, I would, for the same reason prisons aren’t filled with moral nihilist. A thief isn’t someone who doesn’t know that stealing is wrong. People who do immoral things, aren’t completely oblivious that things that they do are wrong. What you might find is delusions, and lies to justify their actions, sort of like one might find for those believing the earth is flat. If there was any group who should be eager to deny morality, you think it would be the most immoral among us, but it's not.

For us folks who do or have done a variety of bad things this perhaps incapsulates us: “For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.”

A person’s lack of concern, doesn’t equate to a lack of recognition of moral truths, just like a person’s lack of concern doesn’t equate to a lack of recognition of non-moral truths. I don’t have to care what shape the earth is, to acknowledge that the earth is round.

[The Grand Nudger]

That you have asserted that a person is capable of lacking concern while possessing moral truth demonstrates handily that the possession of moral truth is not equivalent to moral compulsion.  

Your moral superstitions, thusly, are shown to be contradictory, incoherent, and delusional.

[Acrobat]

I'm not going to humor you for another post unless this becomes a two way relationship.  Confront the fact that you made a statement in ignorance, knowing nothing about me, my morality, secularism, or moral realism.

I'll say this much, I didn't realize that many moral realist, particularly the non-theistic ones, reject teleological components to reality, and attempt to make their moral objectivism work absent of this. I know Sam Harris tried to do something along those line, but I didn't realize that this was the same for others non-theistic supporters of moral realism. So thanks for that.

To your credit, I think you defended your non-teleological/non-platonic, etc.. moral realism as best as any of them could possibly could. None of them likely have ever taken its various components apart as you did, but once we've put all the pieces on the table, we can see that they don't actually fit as well as you thought they would, that it falls apart.

You should read After Virtue, it gives a compelling, and a currently unrefuted case how this sort of incoherency developed in moral thought, particularly among those trying to develop a morality absent of teleological assumptions.

I predicated it was going to fail, I kind of had an idea of what your answers to my questions would look like, I just wanted you to provide those answer bit by bit, so that by the end you'd have no wiggle room, no easy way to wiggle yourself out, and accuse me of strawmanning you.

I wanted to leave you with as little of a defense otherwise, and I'm proud that I succeeded.

[The Grand Nudger]

That you are unfamiliar with moral realism demonstrates that you could not possibly comment on it's being contradictory, incoherent, or delusional.

[Acrobat]

That you are unfamiliar with moral realism demonstrates that you could not possibly comment on it's being contradictory, incoherent, or delusional.

No, I think you did a good job explaining it to me, familiarizing me with it, that I think my complete take down of it, is pretty thorough, and takes into account all the components you laid out for me, referents, mental designations, existing properties, etc..

If you have any new objections to it, please clearly lay them out for me, so I can have some more chew toys to play with.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your mistaken appraisal of your objections ability to call moral realism into question demonstrates that you cannot possibly comment on it's being contradictory, incoherent, or delusional.