[Faith-talk] Moral Nihilist: The Intellectually Honest Atheist

Mon Aug 4 18:29:17 UTC 2014

That’s not at all true. My statement was not a moral statement, but a logical statement. My logical statement is that no objective moral values exist. That is quite a different thing.

---
Peace,
Brandon

Awaken To Silence: Awaken To The Silence That Has Always Been Within You

Facebook: AwakenToSilence
Twitter: @awakentosilence
Tumblr: awakentosilence.tumblr.com

On Aug 4, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Poppa Bear <heavens4real at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well if you would use that camp, then your statement in itself would be a subjective relative opinion and not true or false, right or wrong, but simply a view that you hold in light of your feelings about the topic. That is fine, many people including myself take positions based on that, but in defining truth, or facts, the guidelines may be more objective.
>  
> From: Brandon A. Olivares [mailto:programmer2188 at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 10:19 AM
> To: Poppa Bear
> Cc: Faith-talk, for the discussion of faith and religion
> Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] Moral Nihilist: The Intellectually Honest Atheist
>  
> Yes, once more I see no contradiction with how the video defined morality. But we can have a more fruitful discussion if you watch the entire video.
>  
> Since you posted the different camps of moral philosophy, I would best be described by moral error theory: a moral statement is neither true or false, because it really does not describe anything at all.
> 
> ---
> Peace,
> Brandon
> 
> Awaken To Silence: Awaken To The Silence That Has Always Been Within You
> 
> Facebook: AwakenToSilence
> Twitter: @awakentosilence
> Tumblr: awakentosilence.tumblr.com
>  
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 2:14 PM, Poppa Bear <heavens4real at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Here is some more on morality, after the section I will post the link which
> is much more extensive if anybody would like to read further. Morality and
> ethics[edit]
> See also: Sittlichkeit
> Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which
> addresses questions of morality. The word 'ethics' is "commonly used
> interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly
> to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or
> individual."[6] Likewise, certain types of ethical theories, especially
> deontological ethics, sometimes distinguish between 'ethics' and 'morals':
> "Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing,
> there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Kant,
> based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct,
> reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning,
> based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the separation of
> 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations."[7]
> Descriptive and normative[edit]
> . In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural
> values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective
> claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right
> or wrong. Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies
> morality in this sense.
> . In its normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever (if anything) is
> actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores
> held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch
> of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.
> Realism and anti-realism[edit]
> Philosophical theories on the nature and origins of morality (that is,
> theories of meta-ethics) are broadly divided into two classes:
> . Moral realism is the class of theories which hold that there are true
> moral statements that report objective moral facts. For example, while they
> might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape
> individuals' "moral" decisions, they deny that those cultural norms and
> customs define morally right behavior. This may be the philosophical view
> propounded by ethical naturalists, however not all moral realists accept
> that position (e.g. ethical non-naturalists).[8]
> . Moral anti-realism, on the other hand, holds that moral statements either
> fail or do not even attempt to report objective moral facts. Instead, they
> hold that moral sentences are either categorically false claims of objective
> moral facts (error theory); claims about subjective attitudes rather than
> objective facts (ethical subjectivism); or else not attempts to describe the
> world at all but rather something else, like an expression of an emotion or
> the issuance of a command (non-cognitivism).
> Some forms of non-cognitivism and ethical subjectivism, while considered
> anti-realist in the robust sense used here, but are considered realist in
> the sense synonymous with moral universalism. For example, universal
> prescriptivism is a universalist form of non-cognitivism which claims that
> morality is derived from reasoning about implied imperatives, and divine
> command theory and ideal observer theory are universalist forms of ethical
> subjectivism which claim that morality is derived from the edicts of a god
> or the hypothetical decrees of a perfectly rational being, respectively.
> Anthropology[edit]
> Tribal and territorial[edit]
> Celia Green made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.[9]
> She characterizes the latter as predominantly negative and proscriptive: it
> defines a person's territory, including his or her property and dependents,
> which is not to be damaged or interfered with. Apart from these
> proscriptions, territorial morality is permissive, allowing the individual
> whatever behaviour does not interfere with the territory of another. By
> contrast, tribal morality is prescriptive, imposing the norms of the
> collective on the individual. These norms will be arbitrary, culturally
> dependent and 'flexible', whereas territorial morality aims at rules which
> are universal and absolute, such as Kant's 'categorical imperative' and
> Geisler's graded absolutism. Green relates the development of territorial
> morality to the rise of the concept of private property, and the ascendancy
> of contract over status.
>             
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Faith-talk [mailto:faith-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Brandon
> A. Olivares via Faith-talk
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 9:38 AM
> To: Faith-talk, for the discussion of faith and religion
> Subject: [Faith-talk] Moral Nihilist: The Intellectually Honest Atheist
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Found this video on Youtube today. It closely aligns with my own feelings on
> morality. So I wanted to put it out there to get a discussion going on this
> topic: is there such thing as objective morality?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzfDIewPFb0 
> 
> Peace,
> Brandon
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Faith-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/heavens4real%40gmail
> .com
> 