Atheists are having it too easy.

[Mercurial]

Originally Posted by Almanac

The point is we never do this. Unless by strained, conscious effort. Think about it. We may deny morality is objective but only after it has first been affirmed as so by our experience.

I still don't understand. We experience feelings of revulsion or approval and we experience people using moral language, but I don't know what it means to 'experience morality'. You seem to be saying that moral relativism must be false because we have to think about it before accepting it...

Originally Posted by Almanac

The evidence is from our everyday intersubjective experience of morality and the moral language formed from this experience. Space and time have little to do with it since we're not discussing shared moral values- which may happen to be the result of a happy coincidence or whatever.

I still don't know what this mysterious thing is that we experience. Can you give me a concrete example of a single 'moral experience' which begets moral language and indicates that morality is objective?

[ibis]

Originally Posted by Almanac

Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now if only that was what I was claiming...but I'm not.

Originally Posted by Almanac

Well there is also the evidence. Evidence from interior experience (conscience and how it represents its claims to us), from our interpersonal behaviour and the moral language that we use, as well as from our collective moral tradition:

Illustrations of the Tao

As has already been pointed out, that 'evidence' also leads to the conclusion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. I don't think it's necessary to say more than that - a commonly held fallacy is no less a fallacy for being commonly held.

Originally Posted by Almanac

No but there is some content where we're concerned- the subjective or objective value terms 'good' and 'evil.' There is something otherwise we couldn't even have this discussion; the question is the nature of that something.

Unfortunately, you're taking that point as proof of the objective existence of morality. Is there such a thing as a unicorn? No, but we seem to be able to discuss it as if there were.

Originally Posted by Almanac

Now tell me if in a democracy, people (a majority) voted in favour of enslaving other people, would it still be a good law if it remained illegal?

I would not agree with a law allowing slavery, but plenty of people have historically done so.

[greenporcupine]

Originally Posted by aggressivesecularist

Might as well ask why the Arians or the Cathars didn't flourish (in the end).

The reason lies in the behaviour of Christians (catholics).

Ask a silly question...

The reason the Cathars did not flourish from what I remember was because they believed that there were two entities or Gods.
The one who was good ,and the one who was bad.
The reason this is a heresy is that the 'devil' cannot create ,only destroy.
Only the Creator [God ]can create.
This is central to atheism v theism [creation],because it is quite clear that
atheism lives parasitically on the back [historically ] of theism.
We have reached the stage we have scientifically because of the purity engendered by following the higher path,just as in a garden,the atheists are reaping the harvest of those who 'followed' ,but they will have nothing to sow,for the future,unless .
Reasoning is not creative,it can only analyse,and more of it will bring darkness
and nothingness,as the creations of the past fade.

[Foghorn]

Originally Posted by ibis

I would not agree with a law allowing slavery, but plenty of people have historically done so.

Does democracy then make the deed moral? Wouldn't a majority voting for slavery, in a truly secular society, make slavery moral? As you say history has supported slavery in the past.

[ibis]

Originally Posted by Foghorn

Does democracy then make the deed moral? Wouldn't a majority voting for slavery, in a truly secular society, make slavery moral? As you say history has supported slavery in the past.

I haven't argued that either majority support or observation in nature makes something moral. As Almanac keeps pointing out, one can only go from observation to observation - therefore, all one can really say about a society in which the majority vote for slavery is that it is a society in which the majority probably regard slavery as moral.

It's quite possible, however, that the majority who voted for slavery don't regard it as moral - they may well regard it as immoral but justified. Usually, however, the kind of tension that would create would be resolved either through a repeal of the law or through adjustment of moral outlook.

Tell me something - do the majority of people regard pollution or waste as morally acceptable?

[greenporcupine]

I think most of us are slaves in modern society,in so many ways.
Those who prevent freedom of speech because it offends them are 'slave' drivers,same mentality.

[greenporcupine]

I have a serious problem with those who worry so much about bodily freedom,but
forget freedom of ideas etc.

[Almanac]

Originally Posted by ibis

Now if only that was what I was claiming...but I'm not.

Argument B, on the other hand, requires neither assumption. It's a simple statement. Certain patterns of relating to others are evolutionarily advantageous for social animals, and we can therefore expect to find these patterns dictating behaviour in evolutionarily successful social animals. To state that they are therefore right is a fallacy, but I am not stating that, only that they are what causes us to have a 'moral sense'.

I understand what you are saying. But you do claim that the individual subject experiences the sense that these behaviours are morally right. I appreciate that people do argue in this vein but it's the nature of the moral experience- the perception of a non-natural kind of goodness and badness- which renders this claim controversial. (I should have been clearer in my previous discussions on this point with you.)

As has already been pointed out, that 'evidence' also leads to the conclusion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. I don't think it's necessary to say more than that - a commonly held fallacy is no less a fallacy for being commonly held.

I don't think it does.

I would not agree with a law allowing slavery, but plenty of people have historically done so.

I know that but I'm asking your opinion: would it or would it not still be a good law? Can't you emphatically say that it would?

[Almanac]

Originally Posted by Mercurial

I still don't understand. We experience feelings of revulsion or approval and we experience people using moral language, but I don't know what it means to 'experience morality'. You seem to be saying that moral relativism must be false because we have to think about it before accepting it...

You still don't understand? Really? That's strange. I grasped the argument, which is a straightforward phenomenological one, with little difficulty. All it requires is interior reflection and reflection on how we use moral language. Now if you were a subjectivist it might be possible to excuse mental confusion but you are an objectivist. Are you sure you are not arguing for the sake of arguing?

I still don't know what this mysterious thing is that we experience. Can you give me a concrete example of a single 'moral experience' which begets moral language and indicates that morality is objective?

I already did a couple of times.

Do you experience joy, happiness, sadness? Is morality the only part of your interiority you have difficulty understanding as an experience?

[ibis]

Originally Posted by Almanac

I understand what you are saying. But you do claim that the individual subject experiences the sense that these behaviours are morally right. I appreciate that people do argue in this vein but it's the nature of the moral experience- the perception of a non-natural kind of goodness and badness- which renders this claim controversial. (I should have been clearer in my previous discussions on this point with you.)

I'm not sure what's "non-natural" about it, though. That looks rather like another term that re-introduces the assumption that morality is something external to us.

If I have a feeling that something is 'not right' in my environment, and which is the result of evolutionary adaptation to predators, I don't think either of us have any difficulty calling that 'natural'.

If, on the other hand, I have a feeling that something is 'not right' in my dealings with another person, and which is the result of evolutionary adaptation to social living, it seems to me you wish to introduce the idea that this is something 'non-natural', and without any justification.

We have a lot of adaptations to living socially - we have theories of mind, empathy, sympathy, the various mirroring patterns, etc etc. What's so strange about the idea that we perceive relations as 'right' when they would lead to a better group outcome?

Originally Posted by Almanac

I don't think it does.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Almanac

I know that but I'm asking your opinion: would it or would it not still be a good law? Can't you emphatically say that it would?

I can say emphatically, by my morality, that it would be a bad law, whether approved by the majority or not.