jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message news:<d58e3ac.0409191417.63bc548e@posting.google.com>...

jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message news:<d58e3ac.0409180713.3d67e4fb@posting.google.com>...

jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message news:<d58e3ac.0409170745.470e4ce8@posting.google.com>...

Which humans deemed it so? The nazis? And if most people agreed with
the naxis then the holocaust would have been moral? I would not agree
with you that morals are what they are because humans deem them so. I
would say that we deem things like the holocaust to be immoral because
our properly functioning consciences accurately report to us that
objective moral fact.

But that isn't always true. I'm guessing the Nazis would disagree
with you, that they would say they were morally obligated to kill
Jews. Our consciences function as a result of evolution and
influence. Do you think the Nazis felt what they were doing was
morally wrong?

I think many of the nazis were motivated by hate, sort of like how (I
think) most of the anti-Mexican immigrant sentiment I have seen in
California is motivated by hate. But supposing that there were nazis
who thought they had a duty to kill Jews, I don't see why moral
disagreement is a reason to believe that the thing disagreed about
isn't objective fact. People disagre about objective facts all the
time

I don't understand what you're getting at. Disagreeing with an
objective fact is an error. I don't think morals fall under the
heading "objective facts." If there were an objective moral fact, it
could be demonstrated, evidence could be provided; it would be the
same everywhere. So far, I haven't seen that, but that doesn't mean
I'm right.

Here's what I was trying to get at: I was trying to give an example of
when disagreement about a claim didn't imply the thing being disagreed
about was subjective--thus supporting my claim that disagreement
doesn't *mean* the thing disagreed about is subjective. I don't agree
with you that morals are subjective, and I claim that IF morals are
objective then very likely God exists.

Do you really think we are not in a position to declare things like
the holocaust immoral?

No, but we're making that declaration based on our own moral
preconceptions. I'd guess a lot of the Nazis who carried out the
orders thought it was immoral, too. My point is that someone or some
group thought it was morally correct, therefore to say that the
Holocaust was objectively morally wrong is incorrect;...

I don't see how that follows. I would say that "therefore to say that
there was perfect moral agreement was incorrect". In my opinion, a
person can be factually *wrong* about what's moral. IT seems to me
that on our view, no one can be factually wrong about what's moral.

I think that's correct. Because I see morals as subjective, I don't
think there's the possiblity of factual correctness in terms of moral
decisions.

yes; we disagree about that point which might explain why you don't
see objective morals as evidence for God:-)

That Bush and I don't agree doesn't make morality non-objective, any
more than the fact that I disagree with Bush about evolution makes
evolution not a fact.

True enough. But I don't think it helps your argument that there's
objective moral truth, I think it *implies* there isn't objective
moral truth.

And I don;t see the implication--I don;t see how moral disagreement
gives any support at all to the idea that the thing disagreed about is
not objective.

The way I see it, if there were objective moral truth, there wouldn't
be disagreement. Disagreement is the result of subjective values.
Isn't it?

I don't think it is. I don't agree that if morals were objective we'd
not have moral disagreements. People disagree all the time about
matters of objective fact.

In other words, our belief that we are actually making decisions is
just another illusion? Is that what you are saying?

I think so; I can't say for sure yet. Our brain produces a certain
response to a stimulous, influenced by all the other stimuli and
responses it has undergone. We act in a certain way and observe the
result, and that additional bit of data goes into the system. Because
the system is so mind-bogglingly complex, it makes it look like
there's something more going on. And because reproduction of the
system isn't perfect, there's a whole lot of variation from one unit
to the next as a result of genetic mutation or self-inflicted damage,
and there are billions of units interacting with each other. We're
like a really advanced learning computer.

Golly, I think I don't believe in free will, now.

OK then. Bt if we can be so wring about something like free will, then
why think that [having accurate cognitions about the real world] isn't
another illusion? We belioeve we are carefully considering the
evidence and proportioning our belief according to reason, but why
isn't it more likely that our brains are simply causing us to *feel*
like we know what's going on the way it (you seem to be thinking) does
for moral judgments?

Y'got me. Maybe Keanu was right, there is no spoon, and we're living
in the Matrix. However, until Larry Fishburn breaks through with his
little red and blue pills, or whatever they were, I'll continue to act
as if what appears to be happening is really happening. It's kind of
difficult to do otherwise.

I think it is no less likely that Keanu was right than that our sense
of free will is just an illusion.

The moral significance is in our minds. We decide what is moral based
on how we've evolved to interact socially and the society in which we
live.

Then there isn't any objective moral significance, since there's no
objective moral difference between Gandhi's actions and Hitlers? Are
you really saying that?

I think so. I think the confusion arises because the majority of
people have moral values that agree because that's how we've evolved,
thereby giving the impression of an objective moral truth. However,
as I've said, Adolph felt he was doing god's work, which implies to me
that he felt slaughtering jews and minorities was morally good. Most
of the world (rightly, in my opinion) disagrees with him.

But here's my problem: if morality is subjective, then it isn't
possible for a person to be wrong about a morally claim, which means
it is irrational to disagree with someone else's moral judgment. In my
opinion, that is a contradiction, because in my opinion moral
judgments necessarily say contrary moral claims are wrong.

People disagree about subjective stuff all the time; I don't think
that's necessarily irrational, although it could be. Take, for
example, my current disagreement with you :) Heck, in the Fender
forum, there are disagreements about the superiority of maple versus
rosewood, or ash versus alder, or heavy versus light gauge strings.
And that's just guitars.

But you don't really think that the person who disagrees with you is
*wrong* do you? You just mean you like the sound better, don't you? It
seems to me that moral claims are different, because the moral
claimant thinks alternative claims are wrong.

Maybe the problem is. if morality is subjective, it forces you to
question your own values, and how you arrived at them. You're more
comfortable with the idea that there's a template out there someone
called "objective morality" designed by the christian god, and that it
must somehow apply to everybody equally even if they aren't christian,
or even theist.

Well, I am quite confortable with that idea:-) Seriously, I'm not
saying I'm a better person than anyone else, I just think that some
things (Holocausts, cheating on one's spouse etc.) is objectively
wrong. I have no problem with questioning my own moral values, but I
think what I am looking for is what's objectively true.

I am glad I could help you clarify your beliefs then. You probably
won't be surprised to hear that I think your view is logically
self-defeating, though:-)

Nope. Just as you aren't surprized I disagree.

WE can even still be friends:-)

Fine and dandy. We need more reasonable theists in alt.atheism.
You've probably noticed that. Of course, there will be disagreement
about what constitutes "reasonable theists," too.

In fact there are lots of folks at AA who wouldn't agree that *I'm*
one of those reasonable theists.

You don't find the evidence of objective moral truth to be evidence
against materialism because you have denied the existence of objective
moral truth. I fyou really believe that, you ought to feel a sense of
cognitive dissonence every time you feel a sense of injustice. Or so
it seems to me.

As you can guess, I disagree. Just because I deny the existence of
objective moral truth doesn't mean I don't think morals exist.
They're just subjective. I feel a sense of injustice because I have
empahty with others, know what would offend me, and project it. Why
would that cause cognitive dissonance?

LIke I said above, it seems to me that moral subjectivism implies that
nobody';s moral judgment can be wrong. What's right or wrong would be
a matter of taste. But it also seems to me that when we judge things
like the holocaust to be morally heinous, what we are saying is that
the contrary moral judgment *is* wrong. There's where (I claim) the
sense of cognitive dissonance should be.

I guess I'm not getting it. It seems to me everyone has a set of
morals; some of those morals may contradict another's. I don't think
there's any cognitive dissonance involved in making a personal
judgement about another's morals, even if one recognizes it's based on
personal taste. It just happens that, because of a lot of factors, it
tends to be that the majority of people agree on certain broad
categories. Which gives the illusion that there might be an objective
moral truth hiding out there somewhere.

Well, maybe we have talked this one as far as we can. All I can tell
you is that it seems to me that it's an irrational mistake to tell
someone that *their* taste is wrong. I could say I prefer pepperoni to
pineapple on my pizza, and I could jokingly say that pineapple is
nasty on a pizza, but I couldn't rationally believe that pepperoni
*really* tastes better than pineapple.

see you later
Keith

On 17 Sep 2004 16:47:47 -0700,

jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message news:<d58e3ac.0409170745.470e4ce8@posting.google.com>...

(snip)

snip

I'm still not understanding. I haven't seen any convincing evidence
against materialism, and don't understand how that would reduce the
probablity of atheism anyway.

You don't find the evidence of objective moral truth to be evidence
against materialism

What evidence?

because you have denied the existence of objective
moral truth. I fyou really believe that, you ought to feel a sense of
cognitive dissonence every time you feel a sense of injustice. Or so
it seems to me.

Why do you criticize people for ignoring evidence that has not been
provided? Doesn't that cause cognitive dissonance?