A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2015, 11:22 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 11:16 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 11:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And you clearly don't know anything about the differences between various moral philosophies.

Laugh out load

You trying to claim someone else doesn't understand because you conflate terms and say stupid shit. Laughat

Blah blah blah.

Do you have something related to the theme of the thread to contribute here?

Quote:Why do you keep posting this ignorant drivel? Who do you think cares about your bullshit?

Oh the irony.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 11:24 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
Many atheists are moral realists and probably don't even realize it.

When EK says that torturing babies would be the right thing if it produces a "net gain of alleviation of pain and suffering", he makes himself out to be some type of moral realist. The truth is that torturing babies is NEVER right or wrong, it simply "is", and atheists like TBD and EK aren't able to understand this. That's why they don't like me. I confront them with an uncomfortable truth and their reaction is always anger, quickly followed by name calling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
27-12-2015, 11:26 AM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 11:24 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Many atheists are moral realists and probably don't even realize it.

When EK says that torturing babies would be the right thing if it produces a "net gain of alleviation of pain and suffering", he makes himself out to be some type of moral realist. The truth is that torturing babies is NEVER right or wrong, it simply "is", and atheists like TBD and EK aren't able to understand this. That's why they don't like me. I confront them with an uncomfortable truth and their reaction is always anger, quickly followed by name calling.

I didn't realize you could read my emotional state across the vastness of the Internet. You'll have to excuse me if I don't give a fuck about your bullshit either.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 11:27 AM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 11:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 11:16 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Laugh out load

You trying to claim someone else doesn't understand because you conflate terms and say stupid shit. Laughat

Blah blah blah.

Do you have something related to the theme of the thread to contribute here?

Quote:Why do you keep posting this ignorant drivel? Who do you think cares about your bullshit?

Oh the irony.

Yes, the irony... Laugh out load

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 11:41 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 11:24 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Many atheists are moral realists and probably don't even realize it.

When EK says that torturing babies would be the right thing if it produces a "net gain of alleviation of pain and suffering", he makes himself out to be some type of moral realist. The truth is that torturing babies is NEVER right or wrong, it simply "is", and atheists like TBD and EK aren't able to understand this. That's why they don't like me. I confront them with an uncomfortable truth and their reaction is always anger, quickly followed by name calling.

I think this is quite accurate, it's entirely contradictory. They put themselves in a position that compels them to reject moral realism, while at the same time making themselves unwilling to accept moral nihilism. They want to have it both ways, without realizing it doesn't work.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 02:46 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 06:53 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Emotion is the only moral realism. Tongue




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 11:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  They put themselves in a position that compels them to reject moral realism, while at the same time making themselves unwilling to accept moral nihilism.




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 05:45 PM (This post was last modified: 27-12-2015 05:49 PM by mordant.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 05:11 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  IMO morality should die when religion dies.
Societies and individuals determine right and wrong. That does not mean that it is not relative to those societies and individuals. I never claimed it was absolute.

Just because religion has claimed to be the inventor and protector of morality and claims that their morality is absolute and other moralities are derivative, doesn't mean we have to invent a different word for it. Although I'm open to suggestions, and arguments that there's a need for another term.

Oddly, religion doesn't talk explicitly nearly so much about ethics (applied morality in a particular domain, typically a profession). Despite that, do you want another term for "ethics" too, or to pretend there is no such thing?
(27-12-2015 05:11 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  It seems to me that what you're talking about could be better described as what is "legal" and/or "socially acceptable". With morality being the notion that there are certain things that a person should and shouldn't do simply because of their nature.
Legal and socially acceptable and moral aren't necessarily the same thing. I don't see a claim in societal morality that a particular action is good or bad by its very nature. It is always contextual and evolving. In fact that is one of its strengths relative to religious morality claims ... usually religious morality comes with some sort of claim of immutability, infallibility, or both, and disparages the evolution of societal morality as based on shifting sand and situational.

That is why society can evolve to see the injustice in marriage inequality for example and literalist religion can't get past a static prohibition.
(27-12-2015 05:11 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Atheists who believe in morality are inconsistent and confused. You hear lots of atheists claiming things like "an atheist is a better person because he does good for goodness sake, instead of fear of eternal punishment," without realizing that "good" is purely subjective.
Funny, I'm not confused and I say those things while fully realizing that "good" is purely subjective.

In fact in many debates with theists, they are arguing for absolute morality and I am arguing against it.
(27-12-2015 05:11 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  They will also talk about "evil" things done in the name of religion, as if they have the knowledge that some things are "good" or "evil" and that they know which actions are good/evil.
That is because they are accustomed to the discourse set by religion. I personally am careful to avoid theologically loaded words like good and evil, preferring to speak of benefits and harms. I don't like the label "Problem of Evil" and when using that argument frame it as the "Problem of Suffering". And so on.
(27-12-2015 05:11 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I would even go further than tomasia's "baby torturing." How about total destruction of earth. Suppose a person had the ability to totally destroy every living thing on this planet. Why would that be wrong?
If you want to avoid verbal shorthand like "wrong", you can. You can say that it would be disrespectful and dismissive of the right to self determination of everyone but yourself. (And just to stay ahead of things here, yes, I realize that "rights" are not absolute and our understanding of them evolves).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
27-12-2015, 06:04 PM (This post was last modified: 27-12-2015 06:09 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 05:45 PM)mordant Wrote:  Legal and socially acceptable and moral aren't necessarily the same thing. I don't see a claim in societal morality that a particular action is good or bad by its very nature. It is always contextual and evolving. In fact that is one of its strengths relative to religious morality claims ... usually religious morality comes with some sort of claim of immutability, infallibility, or both, and disparages the evolution of societal morality as based on shifting sand and situational.

That is why society can evolve to see the injustice in marriage inequality for example and literalist religion can't get past a static prohibition.

Contextual doesn't negate moral objectivism, it does negate moral absolutism. Nor does contextual imply morality is subjective.

Do you think that when you claim that denying gay couples the right to marry is unjust, that you're making a factual statement? Or do you see the claim just and unjust as subjective concepts. If I were to say it's not unjust to deny gays and lesbians the ability to get married, would you say that I was wrong?

If I were a slave owner, owning and cruelty treating my black slaves in time in which this perfectly illegal, and you were to say to me that it's immoral to own and treat them in such a way, and if I were to say to you that this is just your opinion. Would I be accurate?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 06:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you think that when you claim that denying gay couples the right to marry is unjust, that you're making a factual statement? Or do you see the claim just and unjust as subjective concepts.
The latter. Although the concept is subjective there are still explicit and implicit societal consensuses that develop about (im)morality. Society has arrived at a consensus that marital inequality is unjust and harmful to civil society. It is subjective, but subjective is not random or temporary either. Society arrived at a consensus that slavery was wrong and that has proven to be an evolved consensus that has stuck. I think marriage equality is likely to be the same.
(27-12-2015 06:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I were to say it's not unjust to deny gays and lesbians the ability to get married, would you say that I was wrong?
I would say that the consensus of society is that you are wrong, and I share that opinion.
(27-12-2015 06:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I were a slave owner, owning and cruelly treating my black slaves in time in which this perfectly illegal, and you were to say to me that it's immoral to own and treat them in such a way, and if I were to say to you that this is just your opinion. Would I be accurate?
I think you probably meant "in a time when this is perfectly legal" and if so then that would be my opinion only. If you were to own slaves today, society at large would share my opinion and would back that by enforcing the law against you. It is a function of consensus around benefits and harms to society.

Theists typically get hung up on the lack of an absolute rightness or wrongness as if societal morality had no actual effect if it is simply a consensus and subject to change. However societal morality is all anyone has. If you keep slaves it is not god who is going to come after you, it is society. Not only the police, but the social ostracism and shaming of your fellow citizens. You might claim god hates the subjugation of people against their will (a weak claim if you're a Biblical literalist IMO) and you might intimidate some people against slavery with that claimed "higher morality", but a shared conviction that it is simply wrong is a function of a stable society taking a unified stand against it. Encouraging each other to strive for a free and open society provides way more conviction than threat of punishment.

With respect to gay marriage, a fundamentalist Christian for instance simply cannot think certain thoughts or hold certain opinions and maintain fidelity to literal Biblical prescriptions and proscriptions in the matter. So it doesn't matter if the social scientists produce a study showing that same sex parents are at least as good and arguably better parents than heterosexual parents. That children of same sex parents are not influenced in their own sexual identification (beyond the lack of arbitrary repression). That SSM reduces promiscuity that evangelicals claim to decry. Or any other such thing -- or simply to have empathy for same sex couples who want to marry and can't. It simply isn't permissible to consider information or have feelings that don't support the dogma. To the extent such limitations sway society overall, they hinder society from making less subjective and constrained and/or uninformed decisions about benefits and harms for the benefit of all, not just for orthodox fundamentalist Christians.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: