about moral realism

[fleetmouse]

No no, I'm not giving you crap, far from it! I'm saying this is a very interesting development, better than the usual go around the same old mulberry bush for the eleventeenth time. Something different and unusual is happening here.

[Metacrock]

I think the more terminology I hear the more i feel that sticking to the basics of argument is what really gets us somewhere.

[fleetmouse]

I think the more terminology I hear the more i feel that sticking to the basics of argument is what really gets us somewhere.

You're nonplussed because you're out of your comfort zone.

[runamokmonk]

This became about me answering if "murder is wrong" being a truth bearer or not. But, I think my question was more about, what standard is used to arrive at it being a truth bearer.

You stated

1. The proposition "murder is wrong" is either a truth bearer or not a truth bearer. If it is a truth bearer, it can either be true or false. A truth bearer isn't something that's true, that bears truth on its back like a faithful donkey. It can also bear falsity.

You also stated~

"Apples are the best fruit" is not a truth bearer. Best by what standard? It's more like an enthusiastic expression of sentiment. "Apples are my favorite fruit" on the other hand is a truth bearer because it might or might not be true.

If you can categorically state that "apples are the best fruit", as not a truth bearer because there is no standard. And yet say that, "Apples are my favorite fruit" as a truth bearer, because it might or might not be true.

How do you then categorize "murder is wrong" as a truth bearer?

What is the standard you have to initially categorize it as a truth bearer?

Why is, 'apples are the the best fruit' dismissed as being a truth bearer and yet "murder is wrong" being privileged as one?

What if, 'murder is wrong", is an enthusiastic expression of disgust from one's moral sentiment?

I have no problem stating that the reason it is wrong is because of the value of human life. I sometimes watch true crime documentaries. One professional talked about a particular sociopath who murdered, and said it was like how normal humans throw away a piece of tissue. They often state the murderers do not value human life.

So, I think the reason is possibly because murder contains the emotion of disgust at the very least. Disgust at total disregard, and dis-value of, human life.

I am still thinking of moral realism though, just because, I try to figure things out to some degree.

[fleetmouse]

That's a really good, thoughtful post, 'monk.

So if "murder is wrong" isn't a truth bearer, but rather an expression of disgust, what does it mean if God says it? Isn't it more like "thou shalt not have blue and orange striped curtains"? Some folks like 'em, some folks hate 'em, God clearly hates 'em, but so what?

[runamokmonk]

I had a hard time understanding following something just because I was told God said it. I disagreed with God over some things until I more fully realized I was being told what people wanted. If a rule could make sense to me, such as to not hurt someone, I can understand it.

Anyway, I tend to think that Gods love comes out of the person.

A few years ago I realized something that made me realize how to understand people better. And that the reasons they said and did things, especially obvious things, had to do with their values. What does it matter if murder is somehow factually wrong unless humans are valued? I think expanding values is what is needed.

And that is how I now think what matters is what is valued.

Murder is wrong, would because humans are valued.

Now, this can be by people. Or, it can also come from God, if God is truly real.

My problem with moral realism, is that it sounds like belief in transcendent truth, somehow, but without God. And yet, have more certainty in it, than a christian who is must have faith. Thats what it looks to me, whether true or not.
Also, I have already stated, that I don't think in terms of it a moral proposition being true or false, and it existing somehow. That is hard to wrap my mind around. I cannot seem to understand how a moral proposition can be said to be factual without explaining it how someone would with other facts.

[Metacrock]

My problem with moral realism, is that it sounds like belief in transcendent truth, somehow, but without God. And yet, have more certainty in it, than a christian who is must have faith. Thats what it looks to me, whether true or not.
Also, I have already stated, that I don't think in terms of it a moral proposition being true or false, and it existing somehow. That is hard to wrap my mind around. I cannot seem to understand how a moral proposition can be said to be factual without explaining it how someone would with other facts.

yes I think that is exactly what's at issue.

[Metacrock]

That's a really good, thoughtful post, 'monk.

So if "murder is wrong" isn't a truth bearer, but rather an expression of disgust, what does it mean if God says it? Isn't it more like "thou shalt not have blue and orange striped curtains"? Some folks like 'em, some folks hate 'em, God clearly hates 'em, but so what?

This doesn't really make sense. you are saying because God tells us what's true that makes it arbitrary as though he can't have real good reasons? Now who is using too much ought sauce? You have not given an actual reason why something would be wrong in a naturalistic universe? Or how we could know that it is.

what's the reason for thinking God telling us makes it arbitrary. why can't he have a good reason and tell us?

If morality is based upon God's character of love that is not arbitrary, you have not answered this.

[Metacrock]

I think the more terminology I hear the more i feel that sticking to the basics of argument is what really gets us somewhere.

You're nonplussed because you're out of your comfort zone.

sorry that's not basic enough. I can't understand it. boy am I uncomfortable

my answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJhzgtg0GB4

[fleetmouse]

If morality is based upon God's character of love that is not arbitrary, you have not answered this.

Sounds like you guys are endorsing emotivism.