Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

I already addressed this. I won't keep repeating myself to someone who refuses to pay attention. Go back and reread my apple tree analogy.

I already did bit I will go back again and reread it.

We were in the middle of discussing this and you ignored my last reply to you on the topic.

No I answered it here #2499

 

[stevevw]

I already addressed this. I won't keep repeating myself to someone who refuses to pay attention. Go back and reread my apple tree analogy.

So I reread the apple tree example again just to make sure I didn't miss something and still I disagree that your analogy accounts for not needing a moral evaluation to judge if I have lied or not. Let me ask you can "reality" be evaluated morally. Say we took all the normative context out of reality what are we left with.

 

[Moral Orel]

No I answered it here #2499

That post has nothing to do with our conversation about my proof that all ought statements are irrational. You really don't read my posts do you?

So I reread the apple tree example again just to make sure I didn't miss something and still I disagree that your analogy accounts for not needing a moral evaluation to judge if I have lied or not.

It can't be spelled out simpler.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The word was created about 130 years ago. So you might be
using the wrong word because the Bible was written well before that.

Likely you are thinking a of a different word.

The word rapture is not used in the Bible either. However, it conveys the meaning of the Bible's concept. The Bible forbids "sexual intercourse between members of the same sex." That is a mouthful to say the least. Homosexuality condenses the meaning into one word.

 

[SkyWriting]

The word rapture is not used in the Bible either. However, it conveys the meaning of the Bible's concept. The Bible forbids "sexual intercourse between members of the same sex." That is a mouthful to say the least. Homosexuality condenses the meaning into one word.

That is a great explanation. So then it is the wrong word in English.
That's just like the concept of "GhettoGangbangers" and but saying "Being Black" is a sin.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That is a great explanation. So then it is the wrong word in English.
That's just like the concept of "GhettoGangbangers" and but saying "Being Black" is a sin.

Same sex attraction is not necessarily a sin. Those who engage in same sex acts are sinning, just as adulterers, thieves, murderers or any other offence against God's character and nature.

 

[stevevw]

That post has nothing to do with our conversation about my proof that all ought statements are irrational. You really don't read my posts do you?

It can't be spelled out simpler.

So let me ask you can "reality" on its own be morally evaluative.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So let me ask you can "reality" on its own be morally evaluative.

What does your question mean?

 

[stevevw]

What does your question mean?

You made my mistake of jumping into someone elses discussion and not knowing what it was about. Here is the post #2416 relating what we were talking about.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[Tinker Grey]

You made my mistake of jumping into someone elses discussion and not knowing what it was about. Here is the post #2416 relating what we were talking about.

I've been pretty patient with you. I think I deserve more courtesy than this.

What does "morally evaluative" even mean? How can reality be/do/something that?

 

[SkyWriting]

Same sex attraction is not necessarily a sin. Those who engage in same sex acts are sinning, just as adulterers, thieves, murderers or any other offence against God's character and nature.

That's pretty close.
But the reason they were considered sinning is that they could not get married.
Obviously, at that time, marriage was not an option, so society did not allow them to be committed to one partner. So yes, they were sinners. They really had no choice at the time except to sleep around.

 

[SkyWriting]

I've been pretty patient with you. I think I deserve more courtesy than this.

The wages of sin is death, no matter how tiny the sin.

 

[stevevw]

I've been pretty patient with you. I think I deserve more courtesy than this.

What does "morally evaluative" even mean? How can reality be/do/something that?

Sorry I am not being rude. I just thought it would be easier for you to read the other posts to get the context. I am not sure myself as Moral Oreal used the term "reality" to explain how he can know whether someone has lied or misrepresented things.

I was talking about how in any philosophical debate we implicitly prescribe certain epistemic facts and values such as not misrepresenting an arguement so that we can find the truth of a matter. Sometimes these epistemic values are intertwined with moral values such as "honesty". I asked Moral Orel how can he know I am lying of misrepresenting without prescribing the value of "honesty" to our debate.

He gave an example of me selling him an apple tree with x amount of applies. He said he can tell whether I have misrepresented how many apples are on the tree by counting the amount of applies I claimed there was by how many were actually on the tree using "reality".

I was claiming that "reality" on its own without using any moral value to determine when a lie has been committed means nothing as its just sense perception and has no evaluative ability unless a moral evalutaion is added. I think the term "reality" means just how things are in "relaity".

I hope this helps but as I am still debating with Moral Orel I may not be understanding what he means and thats why I thought if you read the posts related to this you may be able to give some more understanding.

 

[Moral Orel]

So let me ask you can "reality" on its own be morally evaluative.

Don't feel bad, @Tinker Grey
I don't know what that question means either.

 

[stevevw]

Don't feel bad, @Tinker Grey
I don't know what that question means either.

Your the one that used "reality" to measure moral situations ie

I've already answered your question; I compare your statements to reality. Maybe you believe your statements to be true, maybe you don't. If you believe your own statements to be true then you're being honest, if you don't believe your own statements to be true, then you are being dishonest. Either way, I don't need to know what you believe to be true to show that what you say is false.

I am just trying to qualify what you meant by "reality". But "reality" on its own does not have any moral evaluative ability. Its just "reality" Its just about how things are in the world. If you want to discover if I am lying then "you" have to use some ethical evaluation and not just "reality" whatever that means.

 

[Moral Orel]

Your the one that used "reality" to measure moral situations ie

I've already answered your question; I compare your statements to reality. Maybe you believe your statements to be true, maybe you don't. If you believe your own statements to be true then you're being honest, if you don't believe your own statements to be true, then you are being dishonest. Either way, I don't need to know what you believe to be true to show that what you say is false.

I am just trying to qualify what you meant by "reality". But "reality" on its own does not have any moral evaluative ability. Its just "reality" Its just about how things are in the world. If you want to discover if I am lying then "you" have to use some ethical evaluation and not just "reality" whatever that means.

Man, even when you look directly at what I say and quote me you still don't read it.

 

[stevevw]

Man, even when you look directly at what I say and quote me you still don't read it.

Thats why I asked how does "reality" help "you" not me in determining if I have lied. I don't understand what you mean.

If you are presented with 2 differing amounts of apples on the tree then without implying a moral value it is nothing more than just 2 differing amounts of apples. Just like 2 differing amounts of apples sitting on a table in the kitchen. There is no implication of misrepresentation or lies unless you inject a moral evaluation into the situation.

That moral evaluation require "you" to prescribe the value of "honesty" to see if I have said something false or not. Your scenario set the ethical context when you explained that a sales transaction was happening and you wanted to determine if I had ripped you off.

 

[Moral Orel]

That moral evaluation require "you" to prescribe the value of "honesty" to see if I have said something false or not.

Because there's no such thing as an honest mistake.

 

[stevevw]

Because there's no such thing as an honest mistake.

What about in a situation where you want to find out whether I have ripped you off (intentional deception) in our apple tree transaction. Don't you need some value judgement.