Moral Realism?

[Jichard]

Actually Jichard, the more I think about this the more confused I become.

I'm 50/50 on whether you're feigning this.

I am not sure what you mean by all this.

I told you exactly what was meant by it. And it was fairly clear, since not only do mainstream philosophers and mainstream scientists get it, but other people on this forum got it just find. To repeat:

No, they aren't, but nor a biological properties physical, nor are astronomical properties physical, nor are... You've have this explained to you before by a number of people. Once again: there are natural properties that are non-physical, since they don't occur at the level discussed in the science of physics. You can go back to pretending that this point has not been told to you.

And again:

The main problem here has to with levels of scientific explanation. There are various levels of scientific explanation. To help illustrate the point, imagine using a microscope or telescope. Depending on your level of magnification, you'll observe different processes, phenomena, and so on. We deal with the different levels by using have different sciences for different levels. For example, sub-atomic physics deals with lower-level phenomena than does astronomy.

Now, if you want to address a given phenomena, you need to select the science that addresses the level at which that phenomena emerges (or a science which addresses a level close to that phenomena's level). For example, it would be foolish to try and use sub-atomic physics to explain the motion of planets. Sub-atomic physics operates at way too low a level, the scientific tools of sub-atomic physics won't be of much help to you in dealing with large-scale planetary motion, etc. You instead need the tools of astronomy, especially in terms of discussing gravitational effects of large bodies. Now, does that show that there's some dualism between atoms and planets, that planets are made out of non-material substance, etc. No. It simply shows that it's often hard to explain a phenomenon that occurs at one level (ex: a planet's orbit around a star) with a phenomenon that occurs at a very different level (ex: a planet's sub-atomic constituents), even if you already know that (in some sense) the features/processes occurring at one level are constituted by (or emerge from) the features/processes occurring at another level.

So there's no need to continue feigning.

Are you saying that morality is more than the result of biological adaptation, that there are universal and absolute moral facts or truths?

No, I'm saying exactly what I said to you: moral properties are not physical properties, since they don't occur at the level discussed by the science of physics. That's not a problem for naturalism, since natural properties don't need to be physical properties. For example, biological properties are not physical properties, nor are psychological properties.

This has been explained to you again and again and again and...

[seer]

No, they aren't, but nor a biological properties physical, nor are astronomical properties physical, nor are... You've have this explained to you before by a number of people. Once again: there are natural properties that are non-physical, since they don't occur at the level discussed in the science of physics. You can go back to pretending that this point has not been told to you.

Actually Jichard, the more I think about this the more confused I become. I am not sure what you mean by all this. Are you saying that morality is more than the result of biological adaptation, that there are universal and absolute moral facts or truths?

[seer]

But we on this side of the debate are not talking about obligations based on authority, you are, we are talking about obligations based on reason. We don't live according to certain moral principles simply because we are told they are correct. Again, if god didn't exist, would you then find that murder was a okay. I doubt it. You are always talking about the discust you have for Mao, Stalin, Hitler and the like because of their murderous ways. Is your discust with them and their actions simply because you believe it to be disobedience to god, or do you think their actions to be evil in its own right?

But you have a system Jim where men are not accountable. There often is no downside for not fulfilling ones obligation to his fellow man - just the opposite, men often prosper when they ill use their fellow man. When a Stalin or Mao or a Robber Baron die at a good old age they win - there is no justice. For all your talk about "objective morals" you live in an unjust universe. And what is a moral system without justice?

[seer]

The objective moral truths have to do with the existence of life itself within nature, not with existence itself which is eternal.

Let me ask you Jim, if an advanced alien race came to earth and started to harvest us for food - since we are considered dumb animals to them, like we look at cows - what moral code have they violated? Where does this code exist? And how would they be accountable if it did exist?

[JimL]

But this is no more than opinion. None of this leads men to actually having obligations. It again, is navel gazing that does nothing to produce or cause obligation.

But we on this side of the debate are not talking about obligations based on authority, you are, we are talking about obligations based on reason. We don't live according to certain moral principles simply because we are told they are correct. Again, if god didn't exist, would you then find that murder was a okay. I doubt it. You are always talking about the discust you have for Mao, Stalin, Hitler and the like because of their murderous ways. Is your discust with them and their actions simply because you believe it to be disobedience to god, or do you think their actions to be evil in its own right?

[seer]

Same mistaken "objectively to humankind" phrase. I've already explained why that's a mistake on your part. Please have the intellectual honesty to address that, for once, as opposed to repating the same mistake as if you'd think I'd be too stupid to notice. Once again:

It was a yes or no question: Does God and His immutable attributes, including His immutable moral character, exist independently of and objectively to humankind and the universe?

[seer]

No, they aren't, but nor a biological properties physical, nor are astronomical properties physical, nor are... You've have this explained to you before by a number of people. Once again: there are natural properties that are non-physical, since they don't occur at the level discussed in the science of physics. You can go back to pretending that this point has not been told to you.

What is a biological property that is not physical? As far as our last discussion you are talking of no more than ideas, even though you would deny it.

You've had this explained to you:

"Some have observed in defense of Moral Rationalism, for example, that if an agent does something we consider morally wrong, then we blame (or resent) him. But blame, these philosophers claim, involves the judgment that the agent had reasons not to do what he did. Consequently blame is unwarranted when such judgments are unwarranted (Nagel 1970, Smith 1994). Therefore, since moral wrongdoing is sufficient to warrant blame, moral obligations must entail reasons (section 2.3)."

Please don't lie, even if you find it theologically convenient.

But this is no more than opinion. None of this leads men to actually having obligations. It again, is navel gazing that does nothing to produce or cause obligation.

[Jichard]

You are a part of nature, do you care? Besides that doesn't answer to what I wrote. The nature of existence is what it is whether created or not, so the truths that you find in it, moral or otherwise, are there whether it was created or not.

I'm beginning to think that he denies the existence of nature...

It is God that makes them true, because it is God that created them and sustains them. There is no bat or ball to strike apart from God, and there is no movement presently without God's active power. So nothing, zero, happens independently from God. In other words - there is no natural state of affairs.

[Jichard]

Doe God and His immutable attributes, including His immutable moral character, exist independently of and objectively to humankind and the universe?

Same mistaken "objectively to humankind" phrase. I've already explained why that's a mistake on your part. Please have the intellectual honesty to address that, for once, as opposed to repating the same mistake as if you'd think I'd be too stupid to notice. Once again:

"On the standard accounts of "subjective" or "objective" used to define "moral subjectivism" and "moral objectivism", it wouldn't make sense to talk about about something being objective from one of view and subjective from another point of view. Instead, they would be objective simpliciter or subjective simpliciter. To put it another way: if it's mind-dependent, then it's mind-dependent from any view-point. For example, the statement "Jichard dislikes cake" would be subjectively true simpliciter, since it's true or false in virtue on my attitude. That would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. Similarly, "God commands X" would be subjectively true simpliciter because it's true or false depending in virtue of God's expressed attitude. And that would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective.

That's why divine command theory is recognized as a forum of moral subjectivism, no matter how much you pretend otherwise."

Anyway, statements of the following form are never objectively true nor objectively false (they are, at best, subjectively true or subjective false):

God approves of X
God disapproves of X
God commands that X
God beliefs that X
God knows that Y

And that's because those claims are in view of a mind's views; in this case: God.

You'd know this if you ever bothered to pay attention when people explain stuff to you, as opposed to discarding it because you find it inconvenient for your theology. But that would require actual intellectual honesty on your part. Maybe one day you'll finally read this, as opposed to pretending it does not exist:

"Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

Ethical sentences express propositions.
Some such propositions are true.
Those propositions are about the attitudes of people.[1]

[...]

However there are also universalist forms of subjectivism such as ideal observer theory (which claims that moral propositions are about what attitudes a hypothetical ideal observer would hold) and divine command theory (which claims that moral propositions are about what attitudes God holds)."

[Jichard]

No they are not like any other natural things in the universe.

No, they are.

Are the physical?

No, they aren't, but nor a biological properties physical, nor are astronomical properties physical, nor are... You've have this explained to you before by a number of people. Once again: there are natural properties that are non-physical, since they don't occur at the level discussed in the science of physics. You can go back to pretending that this point has not been told to you.

And like I said, you never connected the two. It does not follow that because we have moral reasons for acting that we therefore have moral obligations. This is not a self-evident truth nor is it more than an assertion.

You've had this explained to you:

"Some have observed in defense of Moral Rationalism, for example, that if an agent does something we consider morally wrong, then we blame (or resent) him. But blame, these philosophers claim, involves the judgment that the agent had reasons not to do what he did. Consequently blame is unwarranted when such judgments are unwarranted (Nagel 1970, Smith 1994). Therefore, since moral wrongdoing is sufficient to warrant blame, moral obligations must entail reasons (section 2.3)."

Please don't lie, even if you find it theologically convenient.

[JimL]

Yes, but we are biological accidents of nature. And the thing that created us - natural forces - care nothing for our survival. So where do these objective moral truths come from? Not from the nature that cares nothing for us.

The objective moral truths have to do with the existence of life itself within nature, not with existence itself which is eternal.

[seer]

You are a part of nature, do you care? Besides that doesn't answer to what I wrote. The nature of existence is what it is whether created or not, so the truths that you find in it, moral or otherwise, are there whether it was created or not.

Yes, but we are biological accidents of nature. And the thing that created us - natural forces - care nothing for our survival. So where do these objective moral truths come from? Not from the nature that cares nothing for us.

[JimL]

Yes, I attribute it all to God, you attribute it to accidents of nature. And nature cares nothing of moral truths, as a matter of fact nature does not care if we as a species survive.

You are a part of nature, do you care? Besides that doesn't answer to what I wrote. The nature of existence is what it is whether created or not, so the truths that you find in it, moral or otherwise, are there whether it was created or not.

[seer]

Wouldn't matter if god and his immutable attributes exist or not, the nature of existence is what it is whether created or not and finding the truths within it has nothing to do with whether or not it was created. You attribute it all to God only because you believe in god and creation, but what you attribute it to is beside the point.

Yes, I attribute it all to God, you attribute it to accidents of nature. And nature cares nothing of moral truths, as a matter of fact nature does not care if we as a species survive.

[JimL]

Doe God and His immutable attributes, including His immutable moral character, exist independently of and objectively to humankind and the universe?

Wouldn't matter if god and his immutable attributes exist or not, the nature of existence is what it is whether created or not and finding the truths within it has nothing to do with whether or not it was created. You attribute it all to God only because you believe in god and creation, but what you attribute it to is beside the point.