Is God Immoral?

[Jichard]

Listen, I was asking a question concerning a point about lying that was in your link. Nothing more.

Not really. You quote-mined one the links I gave you on moral realism, so that you could act as if moral realism was about answering the question of why stealing was wrong. And then you tried to use that in subsequent quotes to argue that moral realism was useless.

And that was a number of posts back. And I have not been asking that for a while - AND YOU KNOW THAT.

You denied asking that in the context of moral realism. And I showed you did actually ask that in the context of moral realism.

No Jichard, you have told me nothing. Tell us exactly why moral realism is not useless. You keep asserting that is isn't but you are not telling us why it is useful.

You can pretend all you want. Your question was already answered:

Moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers:

Start with Wikipedia and proceed from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Or you can read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this, or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this.

At which point you did what I've been criticizing you for doing: acting as if moral realism needs to answer questions like "why is lying for personal gain is wrong?" Which, of course, blatantly confuses meta-ethics with normative ethics and involves incorrectly assuming that meta-ethical positions need to answer questions normative questions answer in order for meta-ethics to be relevant.

[seer]

Not really. You quote-mined one the links I gave you on moral realism, so that you could act as if moral realism was about answering the question of why stealing was wrong. And then you tried to use that in subsequent quotes to argue that moral realism was useless.

And how may posts back was that? And how many times have I asked you a different question? I have not asked why lying was wrong or any particular ethical questions for a while now. So just stop your BS.

[INDENT]Moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers.

To repeat it for the umpteenth time:
[INDENT]I already told you:

"That's not what I said. What you wrote is as ridiculous as saying practically Cell Theory is useless, since it doesn't tell me which actions are morally right and morally wrong. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless."

And I even gave you links discussing the sort of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers:

I don't want your links, I want you to answer the question. Of what use is moral realism as a theory? You keep claiming that it is not useless - OK, now show us how it is useful.

[Tassman]

Addressed to seer:


Um, yes, it was in the context of our discussion of moral realism. You gave that question in response to the accounts of moral realism I gave you. To remind you, you quote-mined one the links I gave you on moral realism, so that you could act as if moral realism was about answering the question of why stealing was wrong:



I've refrained from calling you dishonest, even though you've repeatedly misrepresented what I've said, quote-mined, strawmanned me regarding points I've repeated for you over and over, etc.

Otherwise, I could just call you dishonest for acting as if you didn't asking "why is lying for personal gain is wrong" in the context of moral realism, even though I just showed above that you did.



I just showed above that you have, in fact, been asking that.

And in any event, I already answered your question: moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers. I did that in the very post you were responding to. How many times do I need to repeat myself?



See above. This has been explained to you over and over and over and over and...

To repeat it for the umpteenth time:

I already told you:

"That's not what I said. What you wrote is as ridiculous as saying practically Cell Theory is useless, since it doesn't tell me which actions are morally right and morally wrong. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless."

And I even gave you links discussing the sort of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers:
At which point you did what I've been criticizing you for doing: acting as if moral realism needs to answer questions like "why is lying for personal gain is wrong? Which, of course, blatantly confuses meta-ethics with normative ethics and involves incorrectly assuming that meta-ethical positions need to answer questions normative questions answer in order for meta-ethics to be relevant.

Standard procedure from this source I'm afraid, as you will discover in time, but keep up the good work. I think your contribution to this discussion has been informative, clearly presented and well sourced.

[MaxVel]

Standard procedure from this source I'm afraid, as you will discover in time, but keep up the good work. I think your contribution to this discussion has been informative, clearly presented and well sourced.

Hypocrite.

[Tassman]

Hypocrite.

Why is expressing my support to Jichard for his informative clearly presented and well sourced contribution hypocritical?

[seer]

Standard procedure from this source I'm afraid, as you will discover in time, but keep up the good work. I think your contribution to this discussion has been informative, clearly presented and well sourced.

What are you talking about Tass, you don't agree with Jichard in the least. He is a moral realist, you have made it clear in our many debates that you are a moral anti-realist.

[MaxVel]

Why is expressing my support to Jichard for his informative clearly presented and well sourced contribution hypocritical?

Because when other people do the same thing to you - express support for a good post in response to you, and comment that you're not the most perceptive or intellectually honest of posters, you whine about 'sniping from the sidelines'...

[Jichard]

And how may posts back was that? And how many times have I asked you a different question? I have not asked why lying was wrong or any particular ethical questions for a while now. So just stop your BS.

Please maintain your composure.

I don't want your links, I want you to answer the question. Of what use is moral realism as a theory? You keep claiming that it is not useless - OK, now show us how it is useful.

Already answered your question. And I'm not really interested in your complaints about links, given your tendency to quote-mine sources you link to, while applauding other people for linking to posts.

It's getting pretty tedious seeing you pretend that moral realism is useless, even as you intentionally avoid addressing the fact that moral realism answers particular meta-ethical questions, just Cell Theory answers particular biological questions. That's what positions in science, philosophy, etc. do, seer: they address particular issues. Your mistake was in thinking that they were useless, unless they told you why stealing was wrong.

Once again:

Moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers:

Start with Wikipedia and proceed from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Or you can read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this, or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this.

At which point you did what I've been criticizing you for doing: acting as if moral realism needs to answer questions like "why is lying for personal gain is wrong?" Which, of course, blatantly confuses meta-ethics with normative ethics and involves incorrectly assuming that meta-ethical positions need to answer questions normative questions answer in order for meta-ethics to be relevant.

[Jichard]

What are you talking about Tass, you don't agree with Jichard in the least. He is a moral realist, you have made it clear in our many debates that you are a moral anti-realist.

Well, my favorite philosopher (Richard Joyce) is a moral anti-realist, and I agree with him on a lot of things, so...

[seer]

Well, my favorite philosopher (Richard Joyce) is a moral anti-realist, and I agree with him on a lot of things, so...

So who is correct? You or him?

[seer]

Please maintain your composure.



Already answered your question. And I'm not really interested in your complaints about links, given your tendency to quote-mine sources you link to, while applauding other people for linking to posts.

It's getting pretty tedious seeing you pretend that moral realism is useless, even as you intentionally avoid addressing the fact that moral realism answers particular meta-ethical questions, just Cell Theory answers particular biological questions. That's what positions in science, philosophy, etc. do, seer: they address particular issues. Your mistake was in thinking that they were useless, unless they told you why stealing was wrong.

Once again:

Moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers:
At which point you did what I've been criticizing you for doing: acting as if moral realism needs to answer questions like "why is lying for personal gain is wrong?" Which, of course, blatantly confuses meta-ethics with normative ethics and involves incorrectly assuming that meta-ethical positions need to answer questions normative questions answer in order for meta-ethics to be relevant.

You are completely avoiding my question. First, it has been quote a few posts since I mentioned anything about lying. And second your harping on cell theory is getting tiring - it tells us nothing about the actual usefulness of Moral realism. Or the actual truth of Moral realism.

Anyway from your link:

Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which propositions may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.

In what way are these "objective?" Can you demonstrate how they are objective? An example would be nice.

[Jichard]

You are completely avoiding my question. First, it has been quote a few posts since I mentioned anything about lying. And second your harping on cell theory is getting tiring - it tells us nothing about the actual usefulness of Moral realism. Or the actual truth of Moral realism.

The "cell theory" point is an example meant to illustrate the implausibility of your position.

And I already answered your question:

It's getting pretty tedious seeing you pretend that moral realism is useless, even as you intentionally avoid addressing the fact that moral realism answers particular meta-ethical questions, just Cell Theory answers particular biological questions. That's what positions in science, philosophy, etc. do, seer: they address particular issues. Your mistake was in thinking that they were useless, unless they told you why stealing was wrong.

Once again:

Moral realism (as a meta-ethical position) answers particular meta-ethical questions, just as Cell Theory (as a biological position) answers particular questions in biology. Different positions answer different questions. So just as Cell Theory isn't in the business of answering the question of which actions are morally good or morally bad, moral realism isn't in the business of answering that question. Moral realism instead answers a different set of meta-ethical questions. That doesn't mean moral realism is useless, anymore than it means Cell Theory is useless. And I've given you links to pages discussing the type of meta-ethical questions moral realism answers:

Start with Wikipedia and proceed from there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Or you can read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this, or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on this.

At which point you did what I've been criticizing you for doing: acting as if moral realism needs to answer questions like "why is lying for personal gain is wrong?" Which, of course, blatantly confuses meta-ethics with normative ethics and involves incorrectly assuming that meta-ethical positions need to answer questions normative questions answer in order for meta-ethics to be relevant.

Anyway from your link:

In what way are these "objective?" Can you demonstrate how they are objective? An example would be nice.

Sorry, but I'm familiar with your tactics by now. You've decided to move the goal-posts. And I'm not interested in that until you deal with the issue at hand.

You've been falsely claiming that I haven't answered your question. I've shown that I have answered your question, by showing you that moral realism (much as Cell Theory, and other positions in science, philosophy, etc.) answers specific questions. Please address this point, as opposed to trying to dodge it by shifting the goal-posts to my defending the answers moral realism gives. I'm not so stupid as to fall for your goal-post move from position X is useful, in part, because it addresses certain questions/issues to defend position X's answers.

[seer]

Sorry, but I'm familiar with your tactics by now. You've decided to move the goal-posts. And I'm not interested in that until you deal with the issue at hand.

You've been falsely claiming that I haven't answered your question. I've shown that I have answered your question, by showing you that moral realism (much as Cell Theory, and other positions in science, philosophy, etc.) answers specific questions. Please address this point, as opposed to trying to dodge it by shifting the goal-posts to my defending the answers moral realism gives. I'm not so stupid as to fall for your goal-post move from position X is useful, in part, because it addresses certain questions/issues to defend position X's answers.

OK, so I asked a question based on the link you gave me and I'm moving the goal posts? Your link, made a claim, and I'm asking you to expound. And cell theory has zero to do with moral realism. Cell theory concerns actual physical things. Not mere subjective ideals - like moral realism.

[Jichard]

OK, so I asked a question based on the link you gave me and I'm moving the goal posts? Your link, made a claim, and I'm asking you to expound.

Still trying to move the goalposts. Not falling for it.

Once again:

You've been falsely claiming that I haven't answered your question. I've shown that I have answered your question, by showing you that moral realism (much as Cell Theory, and other positions in science, philosophy, etc.) answers specific questions. Please address this point, as opposed to trying to dodge it by shifting the goal-posts to my defending the answers moral realism gives. I'm not so stupid as to fall for your goal-post move from position X is useful, in part, because it addresses certain questions/issues to defend position X's answers.

Note the portion in bold. Please try to address it, this time.

And cell theory has zero to do with moral realism. Cell theory concerns actual physical things. Not mere subjective ideals - like moral realism.

Missed the point of the example. I already explained to you the relevance of Cell Theory, and it wasn't that. The point was:

I've shown that I have answered your question, by showing you that moral realism (much as Cell Theory, and other positions in science, philosophy, etc.) answers specific questions.

It's getting pretty tedious seeing you pretend that moral realism is useless, even as you intentionally avoid addressing the fact that moral realism answers particular meta-ethical questions, just Cell Theory answers particular biological questions. That's what positions in science, philosophy, etc. do, seer: they address particular issues. Your mistake was in thinking that they were useless, unless they told you why stealing was wrong.

[seer]

Missed the point of the example. I already explained to you the relevance of Cell Theory, and it wasn't that. The point was:

I've shown that I have answered your question, by showing you that moral realism (much as Cell Theory, and other positions in science, philosophy, etc.) answers specific questions.

It's getting pretty tedious seeing you pretend that moral realism is useless, even as you intentionally avoid addressing the fact that moral realism answers particular meta-ethical questions, just Cell Theory answers particular biological questions. That's what positions in science, philosophy, etc. do, seer: they address particular issues. Your mistake was in thinking that they were useless, unless they told you why stealing was wrong.

OK, I will try one more time. What particular meta-ethical questions does moral realism answer? Then you can tell us what it has to do with reality.