Moral Realism?

[Tassman]

No you idiot, that is the way I write. And in a godless universe ethical considerations are about as meaningful as us.

We only have knowledge of a godless universe. The notion of a god-made universe is a failed hypothesis, there’s no substantive evidence of such a universe. And ethical considerations are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection. We know we have ethical systems, we don’t know whether we gave gods...we probably don't

[seer]

And you go back to fabricating claims since you don't have the intellectual honesty to address what was written:

That wasn't a false claim, your ethical musings are as meaningless and purposeless as humanity is in your godless universe. How could it be otherwise?

[Jichard]

No you idiot, that is the way I write.

Not my fault that you write in a dishonest fashion that you use to misrepresent others. You pretend people have said things they haven't said, so you can avoid addressing what they actually said.

And in a godless universe ethical considerations are about as meaningful as us.



No, I'll stick with point out that your ethical theories are as purposeless as you.

And you go back to fabricating claims since you don't have the intellectual honesty to address what was written:

Same old mistakes you've been corrected on time and time again. Basically, you're committing the fallacy of appeal to consequences, and lying by pretending that moral realism does not answer meta-ethical questions. And you'll keep on dishonestly reapeating these no matter how many times it's pointed out, because you have no interest in engaging in serious discussion or sticking to true claims. Instead, you'll just repeat whatever false claims you deem necessary for your pet position.

Anyway, once again:

"You've repeatedly gone on about whether or not moral realism is useful, and I've repeatedly told you that that's a fallacious appeal to consequence, since moral realism doesn't need to be useful in order to be true. Furthermore, I explained to you how moral realism was useful, insofar as it answers meta-ethical questions."

[seer]

No, you pretended I said that.
I said one thing, and then you said "yes", while acting as if I said something else and then agreeing to the claim you made up. It'd be like if I said that "cars are red" and you responded by saying "yes, cars are blue". That's lying; it involves pretending that I said "cars are blue", so that you can agree with that claim, as opposed to addressing what I actually said (that "cars are red"). You do this sort of thing so that you can avoid addressing what people actually say, and instead just repeat your own false claims. And you do this time and time again, as per your dishonesty.

No you idiot, that is the way I write. And in a godless universe ethical considerations are about as meaningful as us.

Instead of repeating your false, fabricated claims, how about actually addressing what was written?

No, I'll stick with point out that your ethical theories are as purposeless as you.

[Jichard]

I didn't say you said you said that, I'm saying that. Now who is lying?

No, you pretended I said that.

Good to know you think that ethics is meaningless.

Well yes, in a godless universe our ethics are as meaningless as us.

I said one thing, and then you said "yes", while acting as if I said something else and then agreeing to the claim you made up. It'd be like if I said that "cars are red" and you responded by saying "yes, cars are blue". That's lying; it involves pretending that I said "cars are blue", so that you can agree with that claim, as opposed to addressing what I actually said (that "cars are red"). You do this sort of thing so that you can avoid addressing what people actually say, and instead just repeat your own false claims. And you do this time and time again, as per your dishonesty.

But the point remains, we are meaningless creatures, no inherent or overriding purpose, but somehow our ethical musings are meaningful? Useless.

Instead of repeating your false, fabricated claims, how about actually addressing what was written?:

Same old mistakes you've been corrected on time and time again. Basically, you're committing the fallacy of appeal to consequences, and lying by pretending that moral realism does not answer meta-ethical questions. And you'll keep on dishonestly reapeating these no matter how many times it's pointed out, because you have no interest in engaging in serious discussion or sticking to true claims. Instead, you'll just repeat whatever false claims you deem necessary for your pet position.

Anyway, once again:

"You've repeatedly gone on about whether or not moral realism is useful, and I've repeatedly told you that that's a fallacious appeal to consequence, since moral realism doesn't need to be useful in order to be true. Furthermore, I explained to you how moral realism was useful, insofar as it answers meta-ethical questions."

[seer]

That's how what was said. What was actually said was:

"Good to know you think that ethics is meaningless."

So I didn't say that:

"in a godless universe our ethics are as meaningless as us"

You simply made up that lie.

I didn't say you said you said that, I'm saying that. Now who is lying? But the point remains, we are meaningless creatures, no inherent or overriding purpose, but somehow our ethical musings are meaningful? Useless.

[Jichard]

Well yes, in a godless universe our ethics are as meaningless as us.

That's how what was said. What was actually said was:

"Good to know you think that ethics is meaningless."

So I didn't say that:

"in a godless universe our ethics are as meaningless as us"

You simply made up that lie.

Why do you habitually lie so much, especially about what other people say? Why are you so dishonest?

Whether I rightly understood some of arguments or not, the bottom is the same.

Not really. The bottom is really just you making up false claims on topics you don't really understand. And when people explain why your claims about false/mistaken, you just dodge that.

You got nothing, nothing of any practical used, nothing that will change a man's nature or desires. No man ever gave up the drink because he thought moral realism may be true. It is navel gazing Jichard in the truest sense of the term, and useless.

Same old mistakes you've been corrected on time and time again. Basically, you're committing the fallacy of appeal to consequences, and lying by pretending that moral realism does not answer meta-ethical questions. And you'll keep on dishonestly reapeating these no matter how many times it's pointed out, because you have no interest in engaging in serious discussion or sticking to true claims. Instead, you'll just repeat whatever false claims you deem necessary for your pet position.

Anyway, once again:

"You've repeatedly gone on about whether or not moral realism is useful, and I've repeatedly told you that that's a fallacious appeal to consequence, since moral realism doesn't need to be useful in order to be true. Furthermore, I explained to you how moral realism was useful, insofar as it answers meta-ethical questions."

[seer]

Good to know you think that ethics is meaningless.

Well yes, in a godless universe our ethics are as meaningless as us.

Wrong.

First the open question has nothing to dow with whether science can answer moral questions.

Second, the open question argument is not just an objection to moral naturalism. I explained this to you before; please pay attention this time:

"First, you really don't understand what Moore is saying at all. He's not just claiming that moral realism is incomptable with naturalism. He's saying moral realism is incompatible with any position that identifies moral properties with any other kind of property. That includes your position, seer. For example, Moore would deny goodness can be identified with God's nature, God's commands, and so on. So if you tried to offer the following as of what is morally good:

"What is morally good is what accords with God's nature"

Moore would reject that definition. He would note that (to use your disingenuous quote-mine):it always made sense to ask, of things that had the divine property in question, whether those things were (really) good. For Moore, you simply cannot have moral properties be identical to other properties, whether those are natural properties or divine properties."

You didn't answer the question:

"Why did you leave that out of your quote-mine, seer?"

And as I already told you, what I quoted did not depend on internalism. Pay attention this time:

"First, please don't lie about things you don't understand. The "internalism/externalism" discussion is not about whether obligations are accounted for in terms of reasons. Internalists can accept that they are, as can externalists. You don't know this, seer, because (as usual) you're misrepresenting sources you don't understand, in service of defending your apologetic position. So please don't pretend you have any clue what "internalism" and "externalism" are.

Second, please stop pretending that disagreement is somehow an objection to my position. The error in that was exposed on another thread. By your logic, since there are people who think the Earth is flat, that means the shape of the Earth is a an utterly open question. That's nothing but your usual, fallacious argument from disagreement."

You didn't address the question. Try to be honest this time, and address it:

"Why do you constantly misrepresent sources on topics you don't understand, simply to preserve your pet theological position?"

Whether I rightly understood some of arguments or not, the bottom is the same. You got nothing, nothing of any practical used, nothing that will change a man's nature or desires. No man ever gave up the drink because he thought moral realism may be true. It is navel gazing Jichard in the truest sense of the term, and useless..

[Jichard]

Hypocrite

Liar and quote-miner.

And unlike you, I can actually back that up. For example, you quote-mine, so that you can deceive people what your sources say:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...078#post225078
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...528#post189528

- show us one objective moral fact Jichard, and how you came by that fact.

If you actually honestly answered this question, you'd know what that's a silly question to ask with respect to moral realism.

"Is moral realism a meta-ethical position, or is it a position in normative ethics?"

Anyway, please stop dishonestly asking for things, as if stuff has not bee explained to you:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ism#post198935

[Jichard]

Is moral realism a meta-ethical position, or is it a position in normative ethics?

It doesn't matter since both are meaningless.

Good to know you think that ethics is meaningless.

Probably.

The answer is "yes".

Is the open question argument an objection to moral realism?

No, it is an argument against naturalism or science being able to answer moral questions - at least objectively.

Wrong.

First, the open question argument has nothing to do with whether science can answer moral questions.

Second, the open question argument is not just an objection to moral naturalism. If it worked, it would rebut your own nonsensical position. I explained this to you before; please pay attention this time:

"First, you really don't understand what Moore is saying at all. He's not just claiming that moral realism is incomptable with naturalism. He's saying moral realism is incompatible with any position that identifies moral properties with any other kind of property. That includes your position, seer. For example, Moore would deny goodness can be identified with God's nature, God's commands, and so on. So if you tried to offer the following as of what is morally good:

"What is morally good is what accords with God's nature"

Moore would reject that definition. He would note that (to use your disingenuous quote-mine):it always made sense to ask, of things that had the divine property in question, whether those things were (really) good. For Moore, you simply cannot have moral properties be identical to other properties, whether those are natural properties or divine properties."

You are a hypocrite Jichard. When you made your case using externalism you never quoted views in the same link that countered it.

You didn't answer the question:

"Why did you leave that out of your quote-mine, seer?"

And as I already told you, what I quoted did not depend on internalism. Pay attention this time:

"First, please don't lie about things you don't understand. The "internalism/externalism" discussion is not about whether obligations are accounted for in terms of reasons. Internalists can accept that they are, as can externalists. You don't know this, seer, because (as usual) you're misrepresenting sources you don't understand, in service of defending your apologetic position. So please don't pretend you have any clue what "internalism" and "externalism" are.

Second, please stop pretending that disagreement is somehow an objection to my position. The error in that was exposed on another thread. By your logic, since there are people who think the Earth is flat, that means the shape of the Earth is a an utterly open question. That's nothing but your usual, fallacious argument from disagreement."

The bottom line Jichard is that you have a system, that in the end, doesn't matter. Goes nowhere and has no practical use.

You didn't address the question. Try to be honest this time, and address it:

"Why do you constantly misrepresent sources on topics you don't understand, simply to preserve your pet theological position?"

[seer]

By the way: please stop trying to mislead people about your subjectivst position. You don't think there are objective moral facts; you instead go by God's subjective views, as reflected in God's (imaginary) law. No need to pretend otherwise.

Hypocrite - show us one objective moral fact Jichard, and how you came by that fact.

[seer]

Is moral realism a meta-ethical position, or is it a position in normative ethics?

It doesn't matter since both are meaningless.

Was Moore a moral realist?

Probably.

Is the open question argument an objection to moral realism?

No, it is an argument against naturalism or science being able to answer moral questions - at least objectively.

Why did you leave that out of your quote-mine, seer?

You are a hypocrite Jichard. When you made your case using externalism you never quoted views in the same link that countered it.

Why do you constantly misrepresent sources on topics you don't understand, simply to preserve your pet theological position?

The bottom line Jichard is that you have a system, that in the end, doesn't matter. Goes nowhere and has no practical use.

[Jichard]

There is no good reason to think that objective moral facts actually exist, or that if they did that they would have any authority, or in any sense be preferable to theistic moral law. You are all just spinning your wheels with no end in sight. It reminds me of the quote from Macbeth.

By the way: please stop trying to mislead people about your subjectivst position. You don't think there are objective moral facts; you instead go by God's subjective views, as reflected in God's (imaginary) law. No need to pretend otherwise.

Except without God there no fundamental moral truth, just moral opinion - subjective and relative.

[Jichard]

Dear Jichard, I think the question that I eluded too in the OP has been answered: He suggested or inferred that moral realism was preferable because it posed that objective moral facts actually exist

There is no good reason to think that objective moral facts actually exist, or that if they did that they would have any authority, or in any sense be preferable to theistic moral law. You are all just spinning your wheels with no end in sight. It reminds me of the quote from Macbeth.

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools. The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage nd then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,signifying nothing.

You're being intellectually dishonest. Instead of addressing the questions you were asked, you instead chose to fabricate the above claims about me and repeat claims we both know you can't defend (since you know next-to-nothing about this subject and are just misrepresenting sources you don't understand). Sad.

Tell me when you have the intellectual integrity to address the questions you were asked or to address what was written in the post to you:

You did not honestly address the questions you were asked. Please address them:

Is moral realism a meta-ethical position, or is it a position in normative ethics?
Was Moore a moral realist?
Is the open question argument an objection to moral realism?
Why did you leave that out of your quote-mine, seer?
Why do you constantly misrepresent sources on topics you don't understand, simply to preserve your pet theological position?

[seer]

Dear seer

Dear Jichard, I think the question that I eluded too in the OP has been answered: He suggested or inferred that moral realism was preferable because it posed that objective moral facts actually exist

There is no good reason to think that objective moral facts actually exist, or that if they did that they would have any authority, or in any sense be preferable to theistic moral law. You are all just spinning your wheels with no end in sight. It reminds me of the quote from Macbeth.

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools. The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage nd then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,signifying nothing.