Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Surely , if we take the first step (and throw out God) then we logically need to take the second step and recognise that morality itself is not "real" but illusionary.
Huh? That doesn't seem like a very obvious jump, so I would expect you to have some argument that connects the dots. Let's hear your argument: Premise 1 is ....?
Also, what ...[text shortened]... realist. Are you forgetting that your own meta-ethical view is, in fact, subjectivist?[/b]
Huh? That doesn't seem like a very obvious jump, so I would expect you to have some argument that connects the dots. Let's hear your argument: Premise 1 is ....?
-------lemon--------------------
Oh no , let's hear YOUR argument.....
The onus is on you my friend. If you truly believe that we live in an ammoral universe then you must by implication believe that all human morals are merely by products of a meaningless evoltuonary process. They must be cultural illusions of some sort designed to keep society functioning. They serve some abstract evolutionary function that has very little to do with human love and compassion , and more to do with the survival of gene pools.
If I came round your house and beat you up , you could say I had broken societal norms , you might say that I had offended common human values shared by many. You could even say that I had contravened the law of the land.
But there is one thing that you COULD NOT say and stay true to your world view.......
You could NOT say that I was absolutely morally wrong to do what I did.
If you did I could just say that I was absolutely morally justified to do what I did and that your values were mistaken. How could you argue with me?
You could say that many would disagree , but that would prove nothing. It would just prove that my actions were deeply unpopular. Not wrong.
The problem is can you live with that truth?