what is real?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
What a meta-ethical menagerie this is turning into. Nonsense on stilts over there, theistic moral objectivism over here...

Has anyone noticed the lack of correlation between the ethical and the meta ethical positions held by agents?

It's not that complex really. Either morality is

1) a real external fact that cannot be changed by human opinion or
2) it is a subjective concept created in human minds that is subject to debate

Theists say it is the first , but Atheists treat it as if it is the first but can't provide any framework to support it being 1) and talk about 2) as if it were 1).

In short they talk about it as if it were 1) and emotionally need it to be 1) but cannot go beyond 2) without getting disturbingly close to a God.

My beef is ...either accept 2) and all the consequences of 2) or come and join theists in 1). But don't blur the bondaries in some existential fudge.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
What a meta-ethical menagerie this is turning into. Nonsense on stilts over there, theistic moral objectivism over here...

Has anyone noticed the lack of correlation between the ethical and the meta ethical positions held by agents?

I think that any time folks have to start asking questions like "What is goodness," you're bound to be standing in the soup.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's not that complex really. Either morality is

1) a real external fact that cannot be changed by human opinion or
2) it is a subjective concept created in human minds that is subject to debate

Theists say it is the first , but Atheists treat it as if it is the first but can't provide any framework to support it being 1) and talk about 2) a ...[text shortened]... f 2) or come and join theists in 1). But don't blur the bondaries in some existential fudge.

I disagree with your analysis, but I fear that you will discount as 'fudge' all attempts to demonstrate why this is more complex than you suppose, so I think progress here is unlikely.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think that any time folks have to start asking questions like "What is goodness," you're bound to be standing in the soup.

One question too many perhaps? You might well be right.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
One question too many perhaps? You might well be right.

I'm all for navel gazing... to a point. That point should be a safe distance from absurdity. I know challenging assumptions is all the rage, but it's one of them quandary-thingies that has the researcher killing themselves in order to find out how their heart beats.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm all for navel gazing... to a point. That point should be a safe distance from absurdity. I know challenging assumptions is all the rage, but it's one of them quandary-thingies that has the researcher killing themselves in order to find out how their heart beats.

It's absurd to think that God would require the temporary blood sacrifice of his own son to pardon all of humanity for their great-great-great-etc-grandfather's theft of a piece of fruit.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It's absurd to think that God would require the temporary blood sacrifice of his own son to pardon all of humanity for their great-great-great-etc-grandfather's theft of a piece of fruit.

I think your use of the term is as misapplied as your understanding of the salient issues is off the mark.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The atheist can very well hold that "morality is not open to change via debate". She could also very well hold that the moral facts are simply the moral facts regardless of what anyone thinks
--------------lemon---------------------

But you are still missing the point. It's not about what we hold to be true , it's about getting at the justificatio xternal phenomenon that does not belong to the world of the subjective or mere concepts.

Let me remind you of something. Your assertion that basically prompted this thread was that the atheist, you claimed, is somehow also "logically" committed to the view that "morality itself is not real". You then seemed to go on to say that, although atheism logically leads to a view whereby morality is "not real", atheists in practice do not follow the logic to its end because it is "too emotionally disturbing".

Now, if you are correct in all that, then you ought to be able to demonstrate how atheism entails the view that morality is "not real". And if it really is a logical sort of connection, I would think this task would be very straightforward. But -- surprise, surprise -- you haven't done this. In fact, in no way have you actually supported your claim that the atheist is logically committed to the view that morality is "not real". In fact, where I have in my earlier posts given you the floor to just show us all the demonstration, you have simply ignored it.

But if we say that moral facts are more than subjective opinion but are actually real facts that cannot be changed we are rooting morality in something other than our own subjective opinions.

At this very point morality then takes a leap out of the world or aesthetics and subjective opinion and into a wolrd more akin to maths or physics. For morality to be an unchangable fact is has to be an external phenomenon that does not belong to the world of the subjective or mere concepts.

Okay, but what don't you understand about the following: absolutely nothing about any of this should be taken as specific to only theistic views. An atheist can very well hold that there exist objective moral facts, and, in fact, many atheists do hold to such a view.

Now you seem to have countered with the idea that "oh, yeah, well anyone can say they hold to this or that, but how are they going to back it up?" Well, then, are you now saying that you were mistaken before when you said that the atheist is logically committed to the view that morality is not real? Are you now weakening your claim to say that, while atheism is logically consistent with a "real" morality, the atheist (unlike the theist, supposedly) doesn't have good recourse to back up or justify such a view? Please make up your mind: what exactly are you arguing?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Let me remind you of something. Your assertion that basically prompted this thread was that the atheist, you claimed, is somehow also "logically" committed to the view that "morality itself is not real". You then seemed to go on to say that, although atheism logically leads to a view whereby morality is "not real", atheists in practice do not follow the ...[text shortened]... such a view? Please make up your mind: what exactly are you arguing?

I love you LJ. Your posts have replaced the nightly news as my main souce of entertainment

Originally posted by LemonJello
Let me remind you of something. Your assertion that basically prompted this thread was that the atheist, you claimed, is somehow also "logically" committed to the view that "morality itself is not real". You then seemed to go on to say that, although atheism logically leads to a view whereby morality is "not real", atheists in practice do not follow the ...[text shortened]... such a view? Please make up your mind: what exactly are you arguing?

what don't you understand about the following: absolutely nothing about any of this should be taken as specific to only theistic views. An atheist can very well hold that there exist objective moral facts, and, in fact, many atheists do hold to such a view.
-----lemon-------------------


You don't have be a Theist to believe that "objective moral facts" exist , but if you do believe that "objective moral facts" (OMFs) exist then you need to explain what this actually means and what the hell you are talking about.


What you don't understand is that I don't stop anyone from holding these beliefs about OMFs , but I do expect some rationale. The reason is that to say that there are OMFs is actually quite a statement to make because of the implications of it.

Atheists who believe in OMFs don't seem to follow through on these logical implications. If they did they would see the problem they have created for themselves.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Let me remind you of something. Your assertion that basically prompted this thread was that the atheist, you claimed, is somehow also "logically" committed to the view that "morality itself is not real". You then seemed to go on to say that, although atheism logically leads to a view whereby morality is "not real", atheists in practice do not follow the ...[text shortened]... such a view? Please make up your mind: what exactly are you arguing?

In fact, in no way have you actually supported your claim that the atheist is logically committed to the view that morality is "not real".

--------LJ-----------

I have defined what I think is real morality and unreal.

It's your turn now.

Maybe if you could explain what this "real" morality is that Atheists think they can believe in it would help. Give me an example , because no-one has ever given me anything other than just concepts in men's minds.

How , to you , can morality be something more than just a human concept that exists in the subjective minds of men?

I'm very curious about this.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I disagree with your analysis, but I fear that you will discount as 'fudge' all attempts to demonstrate why this is more complex than you suppose, so I think progress here is unlikely.

Which part do you disagree with ? Do you think morality can exist and be real , just like gravity ? Or do you think it is like subjective beauty (ie in the eye of the beholder).

It seems to me that Atheism is unable to create a catagory for "real" morality that exists outside of the world of human conception and subjectivity. But maybe I am wrong.

If you can create a third catagory that's valid it would not be a fudge. It would be interesting.

I would probably see it as a fudge , but that would be because it would no doubt be one. The onus would be on you to show me how it wasn't a fudge.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Which part do you disagree with ? Do you think morality can exist and be real , just like gravity ? Or do you think it is like subjective beauty (ie in the eye of the beholder).

It seems to me that Atheism is unable to create a catagory for "real" morality that exists outside of the world of human conception and subjectivity. But maybe I am wrong. ...[text shortened]... because it would no doubt be one. The onus would be on you to show me how it wasn't a fudge.

Which part do you disagree with ? Do you think morality can exist and be real , just like gravity ? Or do you think it is like subjective beauty (ie in the eye of the beholder).
What I disagree with is this false dichotomy.

It seems to me that Atheism is unable to create a catagory for "real" morality that exists outside of the world of human conception and subjectivity. But maybe I am wrong.
The problem is with how you define 'real' in my view.

If you can create a third catagory that's valid it would not be a fudge. It would be interesting.
I doubt your ability to judge said validity with the requisite dispassionate impartiality.

I would probably see it as a fudge , but that would be because it would no doubt be one.
See above 🙂

The onus would be on you to show me how it wasn't a fudge.
Since you have no doubt that it would be, I don't think rational argument is going to do the trick here.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No, I am claiming that if one nation stops recognizing that there are fundamental rights, then the international community will disagree with them and heavily criticise them. We'd also have to find some other sort of argument for challenging the morality of the law in that nation if we want to change it from the inside without a revolution. That nat ...[text shortened]... ill be unable to participate in formal international morality discussions as they apply to law.

I clearly misunderstood your earlier posts. I thought you said that natural rights were more or less defined by what nations codify in their constitutions. It now seems that you are merely claiming that nations recognize the existence of natural rights even though they may not agree on what those rights may be.

Originally posted by knightmeister
What would make me "wrong" would simply be that I would be swimming against reality itself. A bit like a note that's out of tune.

I would be living an illusion and be moving away from the source of life itself. Like a plant trying to grow on concrete.

So why don't you swim against reality itself? Plants sure do try to grow on concrete.
We are not talking about something that is impossible, we can do 'wrong' if we want to, surely that is what free will is all about. So why do you choose not to do wrong? I am not in the least satisfied with your answer so far - it seems to be an arbitrary decision on your part.

You mention 'moving away from the source of life'. Are you afraid of death? Is that why you choose to do right? Is it all about a selfish need that you cannot explain except possibly as a 'product of evolution drives and the human imagination'?