Robert the apathetic sanctimonious sinner and toilet cleaner, in his most recent post took a change of direction from his usual minimally worded posts about his cat, his dog, his goldfish and his god and rambled on rather confusingly about, well, who knows what?
Given that his ramble ran to nearly a thousand words (like wot he wrote) I thought that a response and an attempt at interpretation is required.
The full ramble post (untitled) can be seen HERE but I'll save you from that by extracting a few of the statements and commenting on them.
ONE
Somethings are right and somethings are wrong. But what yardstick do we use to decide?"
Richard" will we be discussing
Applied ethics, Moral theory or
Meta ethics? Because I accept
Utilitarianism... maximize pleasure minimize suffering."
Peter (quips) "To minimize suffering then destroy the world."
OK, I'm already stumped and not just by the grammar. I don't think that I've ever heard Richard discuss applied ethics, moral theory or meta ethics before. I have been
Utilitarianism is simply the outcomes of being ethical and frankly doesn't deserve such a big word which I'm surprised at Robert using (and spelling correctly).
Moving on.
TWO
Peter said " I believe in a natural law".Robert "Natural law is a rational creatures participation in god's law."
Peter "Rubbish"
Richard "I agree with Peter".
The door opens and Trent Horn walks in. "Hi guys, hi Barb! You know that the Cosmological and moral arguments are my favourites C.S. Lewis is moral realism or moral facts and truths. Ought to do good., Give up seat.'.
Peter says "Rubbish it is all instinct"
Trent said " No Peter the moral law exists. It is not instinct. " Richard said "Need a song book to know which keys to hit eh."
"Exactly" replied Trent " Need something beyond instinct. Having the score to a Paganini caprice is one thing but playing the notes another"
Peter interjects saying "Rubbish, morality is just social norms. "
Trent replies "So the minority would always be wrong?"
Peter replies "It is natural to behave morally".
Trent: "Naturalism does not explain all the details of morality where as theism does."
Peter "Rubbish,Verses 20 71 of the catechism say. 'We can know morality without God.' I was an alter boy and I remember Fr Bliss saying just that"
Trent thought for a moment, then clearing his throat replied " Moral ontology needs god though.
We didn't invent morals we slowly discovered morality. Sometimes we try to explain away morals but god says just do it, do not commit adultery for instance. Even Cane had a sense of morality. Often we do understand but do not feel an impetous to do so. Given half a chance we try to weasal out of the ten commandments.
Whew! There's a lot to digest there even if it was already half digested by Robert's mother bird (The Holy Seagull?).
Natural Law - is really a kind of anarchy or a way that Christians try to justify the existence of a god. I believe in science and nature of course but won't be hoodwinked into believing that 'natural law' usurps social laws (legislation, laws of coexistence and society) so sorry Robert.
Moral realism is yet another made up construct like ethical realism and is basically common sense. we don't need religion to tell us what is right and what is wrong and we certainly don't need sexually ambiguous prats who are into flagellation like C.S. Lewis to lecture us on this let alone this Trent Horn nutter.
Moral ontology sounds a bit like the invasive procedure I underwent in hospital on Thursday.
What the hell is a 'weasal' and who is Barb?
THREE
Evolution is targeted for survival. Morality comprises actions that are praise worthy and blame worthy. Some overlap but survival truths can change where as moral truths do not. Survival truth might kill the weak. Moral truths cry out for another explanation beyond mere survival."Here Richard interjected ."Sam Harris says morality helps humans flourish and has a natural origin. Science can explain morality."
Here Trent looks serious "Morality is not just hypothetical imperatives. God commands things because the divine will knows what is good. An action is not good just because god says it is but rather because god is good. God is the good and what he commands will be necessarily be good."
Right, now we know that Robert has mastered the act of copying and pasting.
Why does morality have to have a negative side? Nietzsche is nice to quote sometimes but you have to be careful because a lot of his work was misrepresented after his death to appeal to fascists and Nazis.
Morality, like simple ethics should just boil down to: "is this the right thing to do?"
I kind of lost interest when Robert has this Horn character say stuff like "Morality is not just hypothetical imperatives. God commands things because the divine will knows what is good. An action is not good just because god says it is but rather because god is good. God is the good and what he commands will be necessarily be good." This is just rabid christian/catholic nonsense and makes a mockery of anything that Robert has said copied and pasted before.
This [post has been assisted by a glass of Louis Roederer Champagne that The Old Girl gave me - the first alcohol I've had for over a fortnight so it might have gone to me head.
