Do you wish there's a god?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not an issue for or of moral realism in particular.  If you were a moral relativist, when looking at what the nazis did, for the reasons they gave, you would determine that what they did was good.  That their moral statements were true.

Shot in the dark, I'm guessing that you don't think it was good, or that their moral statements were true.  You think they were wrong.  Their moral statements and "sacred moral duty" a false one.   

What you're likely describing is a less controversial but very different position.  Descriptive moral relativism.  You notice that different cultures have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

Moral realism and moral relativism in contrast as metaethical positions ie "I'm a moral realist"/"I'm a moral relativist" takes it further than a surface level observation of the differences between cultures. Asking he question (or making an assertion) as to why we think this or that thing is right or wrong, and what we mean when we say it. Relativism takes the stance no moral statement has an absolute truth value. That there is nothing about the act of genocide, for example (or any other thing) that's wrong. If a culture thinks it's right, then it's right.

Interestingly, you and I may recoil, what do you mean genocide is right, and good? It hurts people! That's exactly what the nazis thought jews and other undesirables did, or their inaction would do.

---

As far as our possible bent toward amorality...that's more pessimistic simplification than full exploration of human nature.  Still, it's easy to see that we have an incredible capacity and appetite for what we might call bad, or evil.  That's why sin...sin in a sense more serious than any christian is willing to discuss it or in truth can discuss it and remain loyal to the faith is just as much at home in a secular realists appraisal.

[Succubus]

@Acrobat.

"The wrongness of torturing babies just for fun, is as objectively true as 1+1 =2, and the existence of an elephant at my local zoo."

Can't quite grasp that.Could you please provide your proof of that claim?

You have given a moral imperative as your example.  I wasn't aware that moral imperatives were objectively true.   Your claim, your burden of proof.

At present, I hold the position of moral relativism. I may indeed change my position if you can prove your claim.

fredd.

1) Didn't you a few weeks ago agree to use the forum quote function? I mean it's hardly a difficult tool to master.

2) Why is the header in your reply the posters home page?

3) Why are you placing unnecessary demands on my visual cortex with this sort of shit:

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[Abaddon_ire]

@Acrobat.

"The wrongness of torturing babies just for fun, is as objectively true as 1+1 =2, and the existence of an elephant at my local zoo."

Can't quite grasp that.Could you please provide your proof of that claim?

You have given a moral imperative as your example.  I wasn't aware that moral imperatives were objectively true.   Your claim, your burden of proof.

At present, I hold the position of moral relativism. I may indeed change my position if you can prove your claim.

I very much doubt that you hold that position. Once one takes a subjective moral position, for example the Hipocratic "do no harm" position, it is then possible to make objective moral assessments against that standard.

Just my 0.02.

[fredd bear]

That's not an issue for or of moral realism in particular.  If you were a moral relativist, when looking at what the nazis did, for the reasons they gave, you would determine that what they did was good.  That their moral statements were true.

Shot in the dark, I'm guessing that you don't think it was good, or that their moral statements were true.  You think they were wrong.  Their moral statements and "sacred moral duty" a false one.   

What you're likely describing is a less controversial but very different position.  Descriptive moral relativism.  You notice that different cultures have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

Moral realism and moral relativism in contrast as metaethical positions ie "I'm a moral realist"/"I'm a moral relativist" takes it further than a surface level observation of the differences between cultures.  Asking he question (or making an assertion) as to why we think this or that thing is right or wrong, and what we mean when we say it.  Relativism takes the stance no moral statement has an absolute truth value.  That there is nothing about the act of genocide, for example (or any other thing) that's wrong.     If a culture thinks it's right, then it's right.

Interestingly, you and I may recoil, what do you mean genocide is right, and good? It hurts people!  That's exactly what the nazis


thought jews and other undesirables did, or their inaction would do.

 Excellent post, thank you.

The issue is complicated for me because  I remain a 'cultural Catholic'.  That means my day-to-day  moral values remain based in  Judaeo-Christian values. In practice that means I can agree intellectually on a given moral proposition, but remain emotionally against it. Terribly inconvenient at times,  I can tell you.

Yes, my positions is that there are no moral absolutes. However, based on what you've said, I'm no longer sure I'm a moral relativist.. My position is more  reactive than proactive. I tend to instinctively  question absolute claims, religious, political or even scientific.

Logically, my positions is that many behaviours we see as wrong are actually  morally neutral in and of themselves. The morality arises from the situation, intent and outcome.

I accept the moral value of greatest good for the greatest number as a rule of thumb. It is also my observation that politics and relations between nations are  based on "the ends justify the means" . Have come across a few apparent exceptions.

The old chestnut; is it moral to kill one to save 10,000?  I'd say yes. What about 1000? I'd still say yes. Where do I draw the line?

The answer to the hypothetical genocide is ;it depends.

I really don't know to what degree my various life positions are based on reason ,and to what degree on subjective experience.

I use labels; agnostic atheist, soft determinist ,cynic, skeptic, realist, In politics ,a  pluralist, believing in realpolitik. I'm not even sure I use  all these terms correctly ,and don't care: I know what I mean. Most important to me day-to-day is the label of skeptic. This position obliges me to question everything. Most important is to question my own beliefs, trying to avoid complacency and humbug. A constant uphill struggle.

Tired now ,but unbored. 

[The Valkyrie]

So, about the torture of babies.

It really depends on what their crimes are. What if the baby is a notorious and brutal serial killer?

And then there's the definition of "torture". Some people call being locked up in isolation as "torture". Others call being slowly lowered feet first into a woodchipper "torture".

[Nay_Sayer]

Oh? What if one of my life challenges is to win Penn&Teller's fool us?! Hmmm?!

CHECKMATE!

Ah! Just use your illusion.
Like so...yes, yes? 

I am willing to pay six figures for a pdf on that illusion, astounding!

[Athene]

Ah! Just use your illusion.
Like so...yes, yes? 

---

---

I am willing to pay six figures for a pdf on that illusion, astounding!

Nay! You INSULT me by offering such a paltry sum! 
I shall tell you this and no more: Tis all...in the thumbs.

[The Valkyrie]

How about a God of Tits and Wine?

Though he may be a little short for a stormtrooper.

[Nay_Sayer]

I am willing to pay six figures for a pdf on that illusion, astounding!

Nay! You INSULT me by offering such a paltry sum! 
I shall tell you this and no more: Tis all...in the thumbs.

This is witchcraft!

[The Grand Nudger]

 Excellent post, thank you.

The issue is complicated for me because  I remain a 'cultural Catholic'.  That means my day-to-day  moral values remain based in  Judaeo-Christian values. In practice that means I can agree intellectually on a given moral proposition, but remain emotionally against it. Terribly inconvenient at times,  I can tell you.

Yes, my positions is that there are no moral absolutes. However, based on what you've said, I'm no longer sure I'm a moral relativist.. My position is more  reactive than proactive. I tend to instinctively  question absolute claims, religious, political or even scientific.

Logically, my positions is that many behaviours we see as wrong are actually  morally neutral in and of themselves. The morality arises from the situation, intent and outcome.

It's always good to question claims.  I agree, and moral realism also posits that many things we see as wrong are or can be morally neutral.  If moral realism were true, a great majority of the things we think are wrong (or right) would likely fit that category.  There are different ways of balancing those three contributing factors but they also play a part in a full realist appraisal.  They don't modify the nature of the act as hypothetically good or bad, but they can modify desert, and (and by) modify(ing) our understanding of the moral agents motivation.  Particularly in light of our limitations.  The sort of absolute value that realists assert and relativists deny has nothing to do with situation, intent, or even outcome.  

A realist asserts that "shooting people is bad" is a true statement in an absolute sense, because nothing about the opinion of culture changes the nature of a gunshot wound, and that nature is what makes it bad.

A relativist asserts that "shooting people is bad" cannot be a true statement in an absolute sense because it's not anything about an act itself...rather, the opinion of culture that makes things bad.

A subjectivist, just to throw that in there, asserts that "shooting people is bad" is only a true statement if it is the opinion of the person making it that this is so.

Moralities that require a god are relative cultural artifacts based on the assumption of a gods personal opinion....or even less, completely arbitrary.