/lit/ - Literature

>>6276333
I'm not gonna read that article because I don't care, but what's wrong with that quote? Also, what does this have to do with atheism, apart from the author being, apparently, an atheist? Isn't Brand an Atheist as well?

That's a pretty succinct summation of Brand, but Brand is an easy target to take down.

I really wouldn't base my belief about anything on what he has to say.

>>6276342
>I'm not gonna read that article because I don't care, but what's wrong with that quote?

Clearly you're too inferior to understand. Your tiny, little brain isn't capable of computing such information, so you should probably leave it to people smarter than you, like me.

i get the feeling that 'consciousness' is his favourite word to awe spectators

>that 'debate'
What a load of rubbish. They're both obviously quite stupid. How is it that Stephen Fry thinks his personal moral values are greater than an omnipotent, omniscient being? Obviously without a god morality is nothing but an emotional response to external stimuli, so Fry applying that to a perfect being is just idiotic.

>>6276359
Exactly. So, go ahead and process that information for me.

>>6276374
>Obviously without a god morality is nothing but an emotional response to external stimuli

This isn't obvious at all, since there are forms of moral realism not grounded in a deity.

>>6276403
Those are called opinions, anon. Moral realism is a stupid collection of ideologies for reactionary conservatives.

>>6276374
>>6276407
Oi, the two of you! You deserve each other, so find some place you can be retards together, and leave us sane people alone

>>6276414
>being a moral realist

>>6276426
>being an edgy kid

>>6276433
>tumblr
>facebook
Yeah, an emotional old lady like yourself shouldn't discuss these things. Your belief that feelings are morality is exactly the same as emotivism, you just presume that your feelings, not the feelings of anyone else, are factual.

>>6276448
>emotivism implies relativism
No it doesn't. Also, nothing I said even suggested an emotivist position.

>>6276333
Brand is popular. That's why author bothered. Nothing to it.

>>6276452
>No it doesn't
Yes it does, because emotions are subjective. Emotivism is anti-realist. Then give me your positive argument for moral realism.

>>6276469
>emotions are subjective
They simply aren't, they're objective facts about human objects.
Morlity is a fact about humans as individuals and, more importantly as social beings. Like all our other traits, it is, on the one hand, a thing we evolged to have, and, ln the other, a thing we give shape through reason. Thus a full-fleshed morality is a reconciliation of emotions and rationality. Sounds pretty damn real to me.

>>6276484
Do you know what subjective means? What a fuck up of a post. It's not about emotions being real, it's about whether or not actions having definitive right or wrong answers. For example, some may claim that murder is wrong, some may say it is right. Some may say chocolate ice cream is right to eat, some may say it is wrong to eat. Personal morality, the only way morality can be determined is individually, is just an opinion.

>>6276494
>it's about whether or not actions having definitive right or wrong answers
Plain wrong on that one, friend.
>some may claim that murder is wrong, some may say it is right. Some may say chocolate ice cream is right to eat, some may say it is wrong to eat.
I'm quite certain those issues are pretty much settled: murder is wrong, ice cream is right. There's very little controversy surrounding those issues. Also, even if there was a substantial portion of mankind that considered murder to be the right thing to do, what prevents me from stating that they're objectively wrong about this?

>>6276505
>Plain wrong on that one, friend
Not at all.
>I'm quite certain those issues are pretty much settled: murder is wrong, ice cream is right.
Those are opinions.
>Also, even if there was a substantial portion of mankind that considered murder to be the right thing to do, what prevents me from stating that they're objectively wrong about this?
Those people might stop you, but otherwise nothing. Ken Ham can speak for young earth creationism against evolution, but that doesn't make him right.

>>6276514
>Not at all.
You are experiencing emotions right now, subjectively. Is it possible for you to make true statements about them? You are looking at a screen. Is your sentence 'I'm looking at a screen' just an opinion?
>Those are opinions
Yes, and about what? The moral calue of murder and ice cream. Through impulse qnd reasoning, we have arrived at the same conclusions about that.
>Ken Ham can speak for young earth creationism against evolution, but that doesn't make him right.
And people can justify murder, but that doesn't make them right. Your point being?

>>6276531
>You are experiencing emotions right now, subjectively. Is it possible for you to make true statements about them?
That doesn't make the emotions themselves less subjective, nitwit.
>your sentence 'I'm looking at a screen' just an opinion?
No, because it is true. It is not subjective.
>Yes, and about what?
The 'immorality' of murder.
>And people can justify murder, but that doesn't make them right. Your point being?
So what makes an action 'morally right' or 'morally wrong'? What is the criteria for a moral action and how is it objective?

>>6276539
>That doesn't make the emotions themselves less subjective, nitwit.
Why, there are true statements about them.
>No, because it is true. It is not subjective.
Your own phenomnal experience is not subjective? Yeah right. Are you god?
>So what makes an action 'morally right' or 'morally wrong'?
On a basic level, the emotional response to it under the scrutiny of reason, say for example, some variant of the categorical imperative.
>What is the criteria for a moral action
Agreeability
>and how is it objective?
By virtue of the objective factors that shape our moral judgments, which are, our emotions as part of our nature, the need for reconciliation of individual interests in society, and the need to be consistent in such things.

>>6276569
>Why, there are true statements about them
I don't see how that is relevant.
>Your own phenomnal experience is not subjective? Yeah right. Are you god?
My action of looking at a screen can be verified empirically by any other person.
>On a basic level, the emotional response to it under the scrutiny of reason, say for example, some variant of the categorical imperative
The categorical imperative was just Kant's formalisation of his own personal, subjective moral beliefs influenced heavily by his Pietism.
>Agreeability
So argumentum ad populum?
>By virtue of the subjective factors that shape our moral judgments, which are, our emotions as part of our nature, the want for reconciliation of individual interests in society, and the want to be consistent in such things.
FTFY
Emotions are, by definition, subjective.

>>6276584
>I don't see how that is relevant
Well you defined subjectivity and objectivity in realtion to true statements, so...
>My action of looking at a screen can be verified empirically by any other person.
Your phenomenal experience, however, cannot.
>The categorical imperative was just Kant's formalisation of his own personal, subjective moral beliefs influenced heavily by his Pietism.
That doesn't prevent it from capturing most people's moral intuitions. Also, that's a bit like saying, people invented algebra because they wanted to count apples, therefore math is based on subjective, apple-related desires.
>So argumentum ad populum?
Since we are social beings, and morality is part of our social reality, yeah why not. Note, however, that I didn't say agreeability was a question of majority decisions, but rather of an underlying human nature.
>Emotions are, by definition, subjective.
Again, this doesn't mean shit, as subjective doesn't mean 'not real'.

I think anti theism is more about ideology and politics. Ive encountered criticism of religion across the political spectrum, but I think this vigorous anti theism one encounters that rises to the level of identity comes from the most part a kind of hostile Liberalism, neoconservative maybe, like Hitch (late Hitch, not young Hitch) and Dawkins politics

I find a lot of these people have a kind of misidentification of "The Problem" in the world. It's reduced to "rejection of reason" and other various iterations of what they believe faith to be or to represent (ignorance, rejection of science, etc). While the hostility to religion is universal, I find a great deal of it is concentrated on Islam. I think this anti theism functions to help reinforce the false conflict of western civilization and islam among Liberals who detect something is wrong in the world, but their interests or conditions within which they live prevent them from confronting the political nature of their anti theist behavior

>>6276601
Well Islam really does provide the strongest case for anti theism, so it's obvious they'd focus on that.

>>6276599
>Well you defined subjectivity and objectivity in realtion to true statements, so...
No I didn't. Get a dictionary.
>Your phenomenal experience, however, cannot.
Define phenomenal, then.
>That doesn't prevent it from capturing most people's moral intuitions. Also, that's a bit like saying, people invented algebra because they wanted to count apples, therefore math is based on subjective, apple-related desires.
I don't think you know much about mathematics. It differs from morality in that there is truth value in it, whereas morality, no matter how 'agreeable' it is has no scientific basis and no objective criteria for the determination of morality.
>Since we are social beings, and morality is part of our social reality, yeah why not. Note, however, that I didn't say agreeability was a question of majority decisions, but rather of an underlying human nature.
What about those who feel it is their 'nature' to kill? Are they wrong? If so, what is the defect within this 'morality lobe'?
>Again, this doesn't mean shit, as subjective doesn't mean 'not real'.
No shit, the point is that anything asserted from morality is by definition subjective and morality is asserted by emotion.

>>6276608

>morality is asserted by emotion

The bedrock of morality is conduct. That's it. Be it through secular ethics or religious doctrine. What do you mean by "morality is asserted by emotion"? You sound like a younger poster who is having trouble articulating their thoughts. Emotion is a factor, but it isn't any final bellwether or morality across the board.

>>6276618
An ethical claim, whatever it may be, is asserted, at its base, by an appeal to the emotional state felt by the claim maker.
Read 'Language, Truth, and Logic'.

>>6276608
>No I didn't.
You did, in thks thread. Something about right or wrong answers.
>Define phenomenal
There is only one definition, it is in the dictionary. But here's for retards: your friend can tell that you are sitting in front of a screen, but he can't tell what sort of thkngs you are experiencing.
>I don't think you know much about mathematics. It differs from morality in that there is truth value in it, whereas morality, no matter how 'agreeable' it is has no scientific basis and no objective criteria for the determination of morality
Begging the question. Also, there are a number of objective criteria, one being again, the categorical imperative.
>What about those who feel it is their 'nature' to kill? Are they wrong?
Well they clearly are handling their nature wrongly, as, yes, there are violent impulses within us, but our functioning as members of the species requires keeping them in check.
>the point is that anything asserted from morality is by definition subjective and morality is asserted by emotion
And why would you think this is an argument against moral realism? You said it yourself, subjective doesn't mean 'not real'.

>>6276604
Taken in the context of what I just posted, do you understand the political consequence, regardless of your intent, of reinforcing the idea that Islam is an especially potent justification for anti theism

>>6276621
>You did, in thks thread. Something about right or wrong answers.
You probably misread.
>There is only one definition, it is in the dictionary. But here's for retards: your friend can tell that you are sitting in front of a screen, but he can't tell what sort of thkngs you are experiencing.
Yes he can, he could be right next to me. Unless you mean emotions, or something, which can be observed in the brain.
>begging the question
The question has already been answered.
>there are a number of objective criteria, one being again, the categorical imperative.
That is not objective, it was only Kant's opinion.
>Well they clearly are handling their nature wrongly, as, yes, there are violent impulses within us, but our functioning as members of the species requires keeping them in check.
Oh, so you're a Sam Harris style evolutionary utilitarian now? I shouldn't have to explain the flaws in that.
>And why would you think this is an argument against moral realism?
Because moral realism asserts that morality exists objectively, but morality is nothing more than an opinion (subjective).

>>6276624
Executing people for apostasy and suppression of free speech, among other rules in Islam, really do make it an easy target for anti-theism, though.

>>6276631
>Yes he can, he could be right next to me
That doesn't mean he can have any knowledge regarding your present experience, apart from what you tell him. You could be tripping balls, and just tell him you're seeing the sane thing ha sees so you don't creep him out.
>That is not objective, it was only Kant's opinion.
And 2+2=4 is only my opinion.
>Oh, so you're a Sam Harris style evolutionary utilitarian now
Nothing I said mentioned evolution, utilitarianism, or sam harris. If anything, I'm probably an unorthodox kantian deontologist.
>but morality is nothing more than an opinion
What is that supposed to mean even, since when can opinions not be justified or true?

>>6276637
So you cant see it

>>6276658
See what?

>>6276653
>That doesn't mean he can have any knowledge regarding your present experience, apart from what you tell him. You could be tripping balls, and just tell him you're seeing the sane thing ha sees so you don't creep him out.
The psychedelic properties of whatever I am 'tripping balls' on can be observed in the brain, though.
>And 2+2=4 is only my opinion.
Pic related.
>Nothing I said mentioned evolution, utilitarianism, or sam harris. If anything, I'm probably an unorthodox kantian deontologist.
The fact that there are all these different schools of thought about ethics is only testament to its subjectivity. Just admit that you don't know if moral statements can be shown to be true or not. You haven't offered any hard evidence or proof that, say, murder is wrong/right.
>What is that supposed to mean even, since when can opinions not be justified or true?
If it is true, then it is a fact.

It isn't just atheists, anon. Genuine theists also despise the idiot. He gives Spirit a bad name.

>>6276484
Emotions are really subjective. What makes me feel good night make you feel bad.

>>6276663
>The psychedelic properties of whatever I am 'tripping balls' on can be observed in the brain, though.
Fine, but a) your friend is still just sitting next to you, not scanning your brain and b) brainscans do not reproduce yojr trip, the just show evidence of it taking place. You're still the only one seeing goblins jump around.
>Pic related.
Nice. The categorical imperative, however, is much more straightforward, it relies on nothing more than the conceptual analysis of the term 'good'.
>Just admit that you don't know if moral statements can be shown to be true or not. You haven't offered any hard evidence or proof that, say, murder is wrong/right.
Morality is normative/prescriptive, it doesn't describe a thing outside of human interaction. Still, human interaction is real, and it depends on the adherence to general rules of conduct, one of them being not murdering each other.
>If it is true, then it is a fact.
Wrong. If an opinion is true, then it is knowledge, of a fact.

>>6276679
So? Feeling good or feeling bad are still things that really do happen to people.

>>6276685
>Fine, but a) your friend is still just sitting next to you, not scanning your brain and b) brainscans do not reproduce yojr trip, the just show evidence of it taking place. You're still the only one seeing goblins jump around.
Because that was a hallucination.
>Nice. The categorical imperative, however, is much more straightforward, it relies on nothing more than the conceptual analysis of the term 'good'.
No, it's much more than that. Besides, that 'analysis' is not scientific.
>Morality is normative/prescriptive, it doesn't describe a thing outside of human interaction. Still, human interaction is real, and it depends on the adherence to general rules of conduct, one of them being not murdering each other.
Stalin murdered lots of people and created a global super power. How was he wrong?
>Wrong. If an opinion is true, then it is knowledge, of a fact.
Only in the brain, whereas facts exist independently.

>>6276690
So what? That doesn't make emotivism an objective way to determine morality. If what's right=what makes me feel positive emotions and what's wrong=what makes me feel negative emotions, then if a person feels a positive emotion while murdering someone, that murder was right.
'But what about the victim's feelings?' That's my point. The morality of the action is subjective, it changes depending on your point if view. Emotivism =/= absolutism.

>>6276747
Emotivism is meta-ethical anyway.

>>6276737
>Because that was a hallucination
So? You could be hallucinating right now, that you're having an internet conversation with a random stranger, when in reality it's just your psyche trying to deal with the fact that right now you are being raped by demons please wake up
>Besides, that 'analysis' is not scientific.
What are the scientific standards for conceptual analysis?
>Stalin murdered lots of people and created a global super power. How was he wrong?
He wasn't, he did what had to be done.
Apart from that, yeah, sometimes societies turn murderous. But how can you use this as an argument without admitting, at the same time, that there is a standard by which this is wrong?
>whereas facts exist independently
Again, human beings, their societies and expectations clearly exist outside of your brain.

>>6276764
So what? The point has been made: Emotions are a faulty way of determining objective morality.

>>6276778
Well maybe emotivism doesn't just appeal to any one person's emotions, but to shared emotions regarding individual actions? Way to miss the point.

>>6276773
>So? You could be hallucinating right now, that you're having an internet conversation with a random stranger, when in reality it's just your psyche trying to deal with the fact that right now you are being raped by demons please wake up
I highly doubt it, but I could go for a brain scan just to prove you wrong.
>What are the scientific standards for conceptual analysis?
Conceptual analysis isn't scientific. You should try to determine 'good' more scientifically.
>But how can you use this as an argument without admitting, at the same time, that there is a standard by which this is wrong?
I'm just showing you that no matter how badly you think of murder it can still produce an industrious society, so the lack of murder in a society isn't necessary for its function.
>Again, human beings, their societies and expectations clearly exist outside of your brain.
Independent of humanity, dingus.

>>6276787
>but to shared emotions regarding individual actions? Way to miss the point.
Did you forget that my argument involved two people feeling differently about the same thing? It seems like you missed my point.

>>6276797
Those two people were the victim and the perpetrator. Morality isn't about how either of those people feels, it's about how people in general feel about that.

>>6276826
So it depends on the They's feelings more than the emotions of the concrete people involved? The victim doesn't matter?
What if the They sides with the murderer? What if there were a society where murder was condoned because it made the masses feel good when they saw it happen?

>>6276841
>What if the They sides with the murderer? What if there were a society where murder was condoned because it made the masses feel good when they saw it happen?
Then they would condone murder. Simple as that. That's because morality is subjective.

>>6276663
>observed in the brain
Except that correlation is not causation and an observation of one's brain is not necessarily isomorphic to the phenomenal experience this person is subjected to

Not to mention your severe conceptual confusions. Only the grey soggy matter can be observed IN the brain; besides the physical properties of the brain, you can't observe any emergent and innate mechanisms IN the brain. You need nuanced, non-physical terminology if you want to talk about the mind and its emergent and innate mechanisms.

>>6276851
So if they co done it, doesn't it become right? And you're OK with murder being morally acceptable?

>>6276841
Well that would be a very different society then, not even recognitable as a proper human society. The rest of humanity would view them like we view animals, which we do not judge, but use for our ends as we see fit, including killing them.

And the victim's feelings do matter, obviously, but not as the source of moral statements, put as the focus of our own empathy, which is probably the best candidate for the source of morality itself.

>>6276853
>Except that correlation is not causation
The cause was the psychoactive component of whatever I took.
>you can't observe any emergent and innate mechanisms IN the brain.
Yes you can, we have brain scans that can measure neural activity.
>You need nuanced, non-physical terminology if you want to talk about the mind and its emergent and innate mechanisms.
No you don't, you just need to understand the physical make up of the brain and the properties of each part. We don't fully understand it yet, but we're working on it. There is no need to resort to posturing.
>>6276854
>So if they co done it, doesn't it become right?
It remains as 'right' as it was when it was not condoned.

>>6276855
>The rest of humanity
And what if humanity agreed with them? You're assuming human responses to phenomena can't change over time. Human sacrifice was a part of normal religious rituals in many ancient societies. See: the Aztecs, the Maya, the Babylonians.
>>6276868
>It remains as 'right' as it was when it was not condoned.
So there's a standard other than emotion that you want to appeal to now? You're dropping emotivism?

>>6276791
>I highly doubt it, but I could go for a brain scan just to prove you wrong.
Because brain scans cannot be hallucinated, right?
>You should try to determine 'good' more scientifically
The conceptual analysis already revealed that this doesn't make any sense.
>so the lack of murder in a society isn't necessary for its function
Depends on the kind of murder, really. A society that allows murder in general wouldn't last two seconds.
>Independent of humanity, dingus.
Since morality is ABOUT humans, how could it exist independently of them?

>>6276876
>So there's a standard other than emotion that you want to appeal to now?
There is no standard.
>You're dropping emotivism?
Emotivism is a meta-ethical theory that states that all ethical/moral claims are emotional in nature. Emotivism isn't about deciding what is right or wrong, it's about why people think things are right and wrong.

>>6276876
Ok, if everybody agreed that murder is perfectly fine, that would probably have some dire consequences, but yeah, my own view of morality wouldn't even exist. That being said, societies with human sacrifice have still at all times persecuted murderers.

>>6276887
It's for cowards, then, I guess.
>>6276891
So what? The law isn't related to what's right, only what the law says is right.

>>6276885
>Because brain scans cannot be hallucinated, right?
They could be, but that would mean that myself and all the doctors are sharing an hallucination, which seems even more unlikely.
>The conceptual analysis already revealed that this doesn't make any sense.
No it didn't.
>Depends on the kind of murder, really. A society that allows murder in general wouldn't last two seconds.
How do you know that?
>Since morality is ABOUT humans, how could it exist independently of them?
>them
Let's just clear up that you are a human. Anyway, we're talking about facts here, not morality.

>>6276897
>It's for cowards, then, I guess.
That has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong.

>>6276897
>only what the law says is right
And that's why you should start with the greeks, to avoid saying shit like that.

>>6276900
>They could be, but that would mean that myself and all the doctors are sharing an hallucination
Who said the doctors are real?
>No it didn't.
Yes it did, and you admit as much when you draw a line between observable phenomena and morality.
>How do you know that?
Are you actually denying it? Self-preservation would make us avoid all human contact, thus there would be no society.
>Anyway, we're talking about facts here, not morality
Morality is a fact, as in, it shapes observable behaviour.

>>6276868
>The cause was the psychoactive component of whatever I took
For that I will need a watertight theory of causality and reference and as many causal graphs and counterfactual analyses necessary to establish your results.

I'm looking forward to your demonstration.

>Yes you can, we have brain scans that can measure neural activity.
Again, neural activity is physical; not emergent. When we (cognitive scientists, etc.) speak of emergent and innate mechanics of the mind we speak of POWERS of the mind, their capabilities and capacities.

>No you don't, you just need to understand the physical make up of the brain and the properties of each part. We don't fully understand it yet, but we're working on it. There is no need to resort to posturing.
We don't yet understand X, therefore X.

That is one, ironic pep talk, I must say.

Also, we already understand the physical properties of the physical brain, the structure of the neuron and so forth; what we DON'T understand is the causal interaction, and how this causal interaction can be demonstrated, between the physical neurons and the emergent, high-order functions (powers) of the brain.

You're still stuck (most probably, forced by sheer ignorance) in the plane of physical concepts; in effect, you are absolutely clueless when it comes to theorizing about the brain, the mind, their properties, their identities (if any), their causal structures etc.

>>6276924
>Who said the doctors are real?
They aren't, they're just an example. I'm not going to go ask for a brain scan at midnight just to prove a point.
>and you admit as much when you draw a line between observable phenomena and morality.
Morality isn't observable, it is an abstract thought in the brain.
>Are you actually denying it?
Does it sound like I am? I'm asking for you to back up your assertion, you mongoloid. Is that too hard?
>Self-preservation would make us avoid all human contact, thus there would be no society.
If we all want to murder everyone so badly why aren't we doing it right now?
>Morality is a fact, as in, it shapes observable behaviour.
How do you know that isn't an hallucination? Besides, it may be a fact, but morality itself is subjective, as in, the way you choose to act is based on your own opinion of what is right/wrong/best for you.

>>6276925
>For that I will need a watertight theory of causality and reference and as many causal graphs and counterfactual analyses necessary to establish your results.
>I'm looking forward to your demonstration.
It's a hypothetical. Do you want me to show you how hallucinogens affect the brain, though?
>Again, neural activity is physical; not emergent. When we (cognitive scientists, etc.) speak of emergent and innate mechanics of the mind we speak of POWERS of the mind, their capabilities and capacities.
Yes, normal people call that posturing.
>You're still stuck (most probably, forced by sheer ignorance) in the plane of physical concepts; in effect, you are absolutely clueless when it comes to theorizing about the brain, the mind, their properties, their identities (if any), their causal structures etc.
Nothing exists besides that which can be physically demonstrated. Posture elsewhere, pseudo-scientist.

>>6276949
>Yes, normal people call that posturing.
>Nothing exists besides that which can be physically demonstrated. Posture elsewhere, pseudo-scientist.
And that's all folks.

Thanks for confirming my doubts, Wikipedia scholar, and letting everyone know that you haven't read a single book on cognitive science.

Sage.

>>6276963
>cognitive 'science'
More like pseudo-science.

>>6276342
/tread for the most part. anyone who replies after this apparently doesnt reallize they are stroking egos

>>6276935
>I'm not going to go ask for a brain scan at midnight just to prove a point.
It wouldn't prove anything anyway.
>Morality isn't observable, it is an abstract thought in the brain.
I'm pretty sure the effects of that thought can easily be observed in everyday life. For reference, kill your neighbour.
>I'm asking for you to back up your assertion
That is kndeed impossible, as no records of societies that allowed murder exist, either because such societies never existed, or because they didn't last long enough to produce anything.
>If we all want to murder everyone so badly why aren't we doing it right now?
According to you, because of some subjective delusions. According to me, because of a combination of natural moral intuitons and practical reason.
>the way you choose to act is based on your own opinion of what is right/wrong/best for you.
So? Of course my moral beliefs are my own beliefs, how could this be different? But that doesn't invalidate them. What would invalidate them would be incoherence, or or a stark contrast to normal intuition.

>>6276988
>It wouldn't prove anything anyway.
It would, though.
>I'm pretty sure the effects of that thought can easily be observed in everyday life. For reference, kill your neighbour.
Then I will be arrested. Does the law determine right? Does that justify the holocaust?
>That is kndeed impossible
Yep, so don't make claims that you can't back up.
>According to you, because of some subjective delusions. According to me, because of a combination of natural moral intuitons and practical reason.
Those 'intuitions' are called emotions, and they are subjective.
>What would invalidate them would be incoherence, or or a stark contrast to normal intuition.
So, then, does what is 'normal' (read: popular) determine what is right?

>>6277007
>It would, though.
No, because all of it could be hallucinated. Pay attention goddamnit.
>Then I will be arrested. Does the law determine right? Does that justify the holocaust?
No, the law is a governmental application of certain moral principles in compromise with the interest of keeping everyone under control. And interestingly, the holocaust was largely illegal by the german laws of that time.
>Those 'intuitions' are called emotions, and they are subjective.
Not if most people have them. Then they become as objective as any other part of eceryday life.
>So, then, does what is 'normal' (read: popular) determine what is right?
Again, in concert with practical reason, but yes, obviously, morality is a matter of convention.

>>6276911
I'm not saying that, I'm a moral absolutist/realist. I was just saying that the law doesn't reflect moral truth all the time.

>>6277032
Well, you said the opposite of that. Shit happens i guess.

>>6277025
So basically nothing is real because it could be hallucinated and morality is majority rules. I'm done here, you're a retard like all moral realists.

>>6277049
I'm not saying nothing os real, I'm saying there are no guarantees. I'm not saying morality is majority rule, I'm saying half of it is based in being on common ground, the other on reason.

>>6277060
Subjective 'reason' (aka opinions).

>>6276333
Henry Rollins' meat-head nephew, everybody.

>>6276505
>ice cream is right
not for vegans

>>6276569
>>What is the criteria for a moral action
>Agreeability

HAHAHA OH WOW

>>6277040
The law is the law =/= the law is always right.

>>6277025
>Those 'intuitions' are called emotions, and they are subjective.
Not if most people have them. Then they become as objective as any other part of eceryday life.

6/10, got me to reply, good trolling