You are going to somehow connect moral laws with the shape of the earth.

I bet I'm not.

You better use phrases that make sense?!? Do you mean that you bet you aren't the shape of the earth?

I bet I'm not going to somehow connect moral laws with the shape of the earth.

So, you aren't going to connect them to objective things in general? Explain how you think they relate.

It is kind of the point. Either morals are objective or they aren't. They seem subjective (and still very important) to me. I can't imagine minding being raped without it being subjectively yucky.

The correctness or otherwise of a claim about flatness of the earth is determined by how the real world is. There is a fact of the matter about such things and people are more or less correct in their beliefs based on how closely their description of the world matches reality.

Similarly, there is a fact of the matter about moral issues. People's moral opinions are more or less correct based on how closely their moral standpoint describes those moral facts accurately.
They are.
We undoubtedly have subjective moral opinions about moral questions (just as we have subjective opinions about geographical facts - it doesn't matter how fervent, nor popular ones belief in a flat earth is. It's still wrong, whether anyone is aware of the error or not).

The fact we form opinions about something doesn't imply there is no fact of the matter (some people think 0.99999 < 1. No matter how popular that subjective opinion, it is objectively wrong.

If it is okay for Bunny to use a heuristic and conclude about God's existence and therefore be a strong atheist, it seems rather trivial to extend this principle to also apply to conclusions about moral objectivity.

There is certainly indications that morals exist and also to an extent shared. I'm not saying I agree with Bunny, but if abductive reasoning is allowed in one case then it must surely be allowed in another. A protest then, from someone allowing it in the first example must not take the form of not allowing it in the second.

Instead they must show why the abductive reasoning fails. Which is the dilemma they have allowed.

Needless to say this also applies even if the issue is purely semantic, because we must still allow Bunny to use terms in the same manner.

What does reality have to say about morality?

The view "the earth is flat" can be checked against reality by looking at the earth ( from space at least)

The view "rape is right" can be checked against reality how?

What are these moral facts and where can I find them in reality?

Through rational deductions from intuitively known axioms. Similar to mathematical knowledge.

Note though that the earth wasn't flat, even when it couldn't be checked. Whether we can know it (now) isn't relevant to whether a fact exists.

Thats not reality though, thats rational deductions, thought. Which is fine, but its not reality. What are the intuitively known axioms? Where can these axioms be viewed in reality?


Yes,in the only reality that could be checked ( their immediate surroundings) it appeared that the earth was flat. My question wasnt about whats actually true and false, its about where in reality you can look to find facts about morality ( whether we deduce the "truth" from reality or we get it wrong)

Thoughts are real. Ideas are real. They're not anywhere.
How it appeared is irrelevant to how it actually was.

My point is that whether we can know something isn't relevant to whether it is true.

Then they are not real. I agree that thoughts are real, as in, they are experienced. If the only place things appear is in the content of a thought, then they are not real.

Your point( the one that I was responding to anyway) was that you can check in reality whether your views ( on morality) are inconsistent. I am asking you where you can check. If your answer is "You can check in the content of thought" then I dont think it has much to do with reality.

You do see how this gives you quite an epistemological predicament, however?

Most likely. I am not sure exactly what predicament you mean though, can you expand a little?

You state that if things only appear in thought they are not real, but how do you determine if they only appear in thought? The only means you have at your disposal to do this is, after all, thought.

I can see a tree, without actually calling it a tree, and "know" to go round it. I guess you are one of the people who defines all experience of input as thought?

No, I actually only consider experience to be experience. However in that post I was commenting on the discussion between you and Bunny, and I was only taking a devil's advocate perspective and used your own statement against you.

Personally I see no particular reason to hold special stock in the notion of "thought". It's seemingly here so it seemingly works, and that's about it for me.

Yes they are. Some things exist without having a location.

When I said this:
I didn't use the word reality to mean "the physical world".

Moral truths are concepts, not physical things (any more than pi, circles or pythagoras' theorem are). Circles exist, but you can't point to one. Pythagoras' theorem is true in a Euclidean space, without it existing anywhere.

I made no claim about being able to check whether your views on morality are inconsistent:
My views on moral objectivity remain even if I adopt the view that no moral truth is knowable.

--Examples of Strong Atheism(extreme)

Kim Jong Un, multiple mass civilian shooters,

Joe Stalin?



-- Countries associated with Strong Atheism
North Korea( the one and only complete Totalitarian system on Earth)

North Korea is quite possibly the most dangerous country in the world with practically no law system. In fact if you view God in the sense of Islam or Christianity you are at risk of the death penalty, even if you are doing this in the comfort of your own home. North Korea is the absolute worst country in the world, by far, its not even close. This extreme forum of atheism(literally no checks and balances) we see in North Korea is in reality, atheism at its absolute worst. Whats odd about the first leader of North Korea(the First Kim) a man who received assistance from the Catholic organizations during the 30s-40s, of course eventually Kim Il-sung would turn his back on any forum of religion in North Korea, outlawing all religion except for allowing praise of himself as God.

My semantic confusion with objectivism is more basic than technicalities of methodology. To put it another way, a moral action I think is by any meaningful definition something we have some tangible reason to prefer, and I don't see how morality defined as an objective metaphysical property provides that.

Where does the quality that would make it "objectively" preferable to a subjective-value-derived moral program come from? Why is it something anyone would ever care about? (other than perhaps to satisfy anthropocentric desire to add meaning to our actions transcending their consequences.)

It seems to me like objectivism is shooting for something more like "nobleness in the eyes of the universe", and just (subjectively) plugging that in to the definition of morality.

Right handed people have killed far more innocents throughout history than left handed people have.

The conclusion is obvious.

Why would a villain prefer moral actions?

I think your requirement here is circular - basically that a moral action is something moral people should want to do.

Ice cream has a real flavour. Whether we prefer one to the other is a subjective issue. Some actions are good, some bad. Our moral preferences are described by which of those we prefer.

I don't think morality can hinge on preferences. What we'd like to do and what we think we should do are different things.

fascinating