Also with the legalization of marijuana as medicine leads to significantly less death by overdosage on painkillers, I'm sure god if he were to exist would be happy about that rather than mad or sad, that is making the best for what he supposedly offered us and making it a good thing.

That is actually a fair point, and I cannot contest... So I shall concede in my counterpoint to yours and change my argument instead.

Rather that the difference between deities and morality, justice, truth, all do exist and are evident. Though I imagine that we might have fundamentally different ideas of what these things are supposed to be and that is likely where our disagreement will stem from.

Also "And it is as equally true of these things that they do not exist as it is of truth." Do you not see the irony in this statement? How can you say X is true and in the same sentence proclaim that truth does not exist? I find that to be rather contradictory.

While I can see that women have more power in this situation, this would make it too easy for any man to bail on a knocked up a chick rather easily.

No... because I don't want to get to shot... .

You know honestly I wouldn't be too shocked to learn that extraterrestrial life had their own religions. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a phenomenon amongst intelligent life. For all we know it could be perfectly natural for intelligent life to develop religions and not because their is a creator but because of other reasons.

I mean the concept of god isn't really all that complex, all we are talking about here is a cosmic agent. The combination of two concepts: the cosmos, and beings. We look at everything around us, the sky, our world, wondering how far it goes and we sum up all of our reality that we can possibly figure there to be and call it the cosmos.

I think you're comparison is of apples and oranges, you see you are comparing ideals: "justice, morality, ..., humanism..." to something that is supposed to be more than an ideal. The only fair comparison here is truth, and that by definition is existent.

If an omniscient being knows every decision it is to make an eternity before, and if knowledge is "true (as in it is correct), logical belief" then that would mean it is incapable of making any other decision otherwise it wouldn't know it's own decisions. However I'd argue that "responsibility" combined with "omniscience" can never coexist with free will so

What about me? Don't I deserve some praise, after all I am only the best guy on here ;P you will rue the day you didn't acknowledge my superiority!!!

In all seriousness, if dana really bothers you that much, perhaps you are better off going, I do however think it seems unreasonable to allow someone to drive you away from here, when you can simply ignore them

If a thing had sentience, but no longer has sentience, can we still abort it?

I see no reason to object.

You said it can be pinned down, but requiring a wide range is the opposite of pinned down.

Wide? not knowing within a couple of seconds when sentience develops is considered to wide? that's funny... It comes down to a matter of weeks, and days.

Whatever moment you pin sentience to, there will be a pro-lifer saying "why is it human now, but not 2 seconds ago?" And the pro-choice movement will have to think of something.

We don't pin-point the exact second a fetus becomes sentience, medical professionals are probably significantly more cautious than that and would not perform an abortion before it could possibly develop sentience, and if they didn't I would hold the position that they should.

Earlier you said something like: "the only truth expressed in moral statements is that of individual preference". If we accept that moral statements can truly reflect preference, this means we accept that moral statements CAN be true in at least some sense. Will you agree that all intelligible moral statements are statements about what is valued?

yes

All "moral statements" are supposedly "good advice".

Personally, I think that's a really neat way of explaining morality in laymans terms.

Good is determined by what is valued. If following the advice in question reliably results in attaining/maintaining desirable conditions, then the moral statement is at least somewhat true. For example, if health is your primary value....smoking cigarettes is clearly wrong

smoking cigarettes would be wrong for improving ones health. I would concur.

I am given to incoherent rambling now and again, but with the "events that impoverish sicken and kill, as opposed to those that enrich, heal, and allow us to flourish and thrive." statement I was thinking of the logical basis of MY morality, and talking like everyone justifies their idea of morality the same way I do...oops!

I am still confused... I was hoping you could articulate your point there, in another way.

It is true that setting standards to live by and taking them seriously will produce "approvable" results more consistently than taking a laissez faire approach to habit formation.

exactly

One's values are always based on recognition of more or less "preferred conditions". A description of a value can be true, false or a messy mixture of both. Values are..... held or not held .....NOT.... true or untrue

What makes a value true or untrue? what truth does a value hold?

Morality IS honoring a value system. A moral statement is true, if it amounts to an expression of good advice (ie it helps attain/keep what's valued)

Again, if I value genetic superiority, then that would make it morally right to enslave and exterminate the genetically inferior, no? After all that is honoring a system of values is it not?

They express truths about what we value

I would agree.

My response here is the same as my response to the fruit of the poisoned tree discussion below. I refer you there; please let me know if you think this overlooked anything.

You said "People may reason from their moral premise, but so long as their reasoning is premised upon their morality it is fruit of the poisoned tree."

in which I said "I would disagree, I think it is entirely possible to come to moral premises from reason, however, it's just not purely logical because it is compromised by how we think the world should be"

Your point being (if I am not mistaken, as maybe I misunderstood your expression "fruit of the poisoned tree") that if we reason from moral premises then we suffer the consequences of warping how we perceive the reality of things, since our moral frameworks hold no barring on what our reality is. However, my point was that we do not reason FROM moral premises but rather we reason TO moral premises. We come to form our attitudes of what we approve of and disapprove of based off some form of reasoning, we can thus debate the quality of our reasoning from there, despite the fact that our attitudes of approval and disapproval (morality) may not be in any form truth, reality, or knowledge, it can still be reasonable or unreasonable. The problem is when we mistake our morality for truth, reality, and knowledge.

Call it what you like, I do not see that this changes my analysis regarding the distinction between morality specifically and philosophy generally.

All morality really is, are our attitudes of approval and disapproval, it is simply that the overwhelming majority due to insecurities over perceived threats towards their moral frameworks, tend to mistake their attitudes of approval and disapproval as transcendent, and a form of knowledge and truth.

I see that less as an acknowledgement, and more as an assumption. What utility?

It is simply our way of referring to our attitudes of approval and disapproval, of which relates to how we should treat each other, behave around each other, and arguably the back bone behind society and law in general. That is it's utility.

If you are developing a moral system from a basis of reason, then I would contend you are not creating a moral system at all but rather an amoral system of logic to which the term morality is being misapplied.

I disagree, but perhaps that comes down to whether or not moral premises are supposed to, or meant to express truth. The moral nihilist of the error theorist branch would argue that moral premises are meaning to express truth statements but utterly fail to do so, while the non-cognitivist moral nihilist would argue that the language of morality was meant to express attitudes of approval and disapproval and nothing more than that.

It seems a ineffectual and inaccurate practice, to go to the bother of creating a logical framework only to dilute it by communicating it in terms of moral right and wrong.

It is convenient for expressing a schema for what should be encouraged and discouraged.

Further, introducing our emotional preferences for how the world "should" be innately perverts the reasoning process from logic. There is no objective way that anything "should" be; there is only what is.

Well of course how things should be, what should be encouraged and discouraged is ultimately not objective, they are based off desires and intentions, goals and agendas, but they have to be discussed. A civilization in which there are laws that mean to have us co-exist with each other to the point that we thrive together in nature requires establishing a "way things should be". Objectively murder is not right or wrong, it is not true that we should murder or shouldn't murder each other, but it is true that it is counter-productive to the establishment of civilization. While one may be able to argue, that morality isn't necessary in order discuss the necessities for a civilization, what about the necessity for a civilization in and of itself? What about the things that aren't exactly covered by laws, lying, scamming, manipulating, disrespecting each other. It is convenient to have a moral language, a language for what we disapprove of, as it allows us to philosophize on what we should encourage and discourage as a species, and by extension how we can co-exist with each other.

We can apply reason and logic to discuss our emotional preferences; however, we are ultimately not discussing reality or defending reasonable or logical convictions, but rather are attempting to legitimate what are fundamentally illegitimate perceptions of reality.

not defending logical convictions? Here is where I have to disagree, while I concur that when we apply reasoning to our emotional preferences, as you call them, our attitudes of approval and disapproval, we can do so while fully acknowledging that in no way are we discussing the reality of things, but simply that, our attitudes of approval and disapproval. It doesn't have to be an attempt to legitimate any perception of reality. However they can still be logical convictions, valid lines of reasoning as to why I disapprove of this and approve of that, as much as they may be tied to my feelings, and intentions.

The moment that we bend logic to the service of our preferences, we have lost logic as a pursuit and are utilizing it only as a tool; the conclusions we reach in such a process cannot be accurately described as logical themselves, and certainly not as objective.

Yes, they can, if logic is the study of valid reasoning, and if our reasoning as to why we approve of this or disapprove of this is valid, it is definitely logical, and we had not lost the pursuit of logic. granted, these convictions are compromised by feelings and intentions, they can still be logical feelings and intentions.

I think my point stands, however, that morality is not necessary to reach those conclusions. Not only is it unnecessary, I maintain that it encumbers that end by distorting our understanding of objecitve reality in deference to our emotional preferences.

However, you can't reach those conclusions in a purely logical way, or in any way superior to that of the use of moral language. What would be the difference between me expressing what I approve of and disapprove of, through terminology of right and wrong, if I were to acknowledge that in no way does it have any barring on knowledge, reality, truth. ultimately we would be doing the same thing, except I would be doing it within a school of thought specifically meant for it. When you come to a conclusion about what should be encouraged and discouraged, it will be compromised by your feelings, intentions, and everything that comes with your sentience. Nothing objectively should be encouraged or discouraged, the only reason things are encouraged or discouraged is because there are sentient minds that perform such a function, after all it is ultimately logical that they do so.

So we are in agreement that moral statements CAN be true or false, depending on whether they accurately reflect the value system they're supposed to correspond to right?

Not at all, I do not think any moral statements express truth as they do not at all describe the world but are merely expressions of what you approve of and disapprove of.

There are truth claims implicit in any moral statement.It's assumed! that there are events that impoverish sicken and kill, as opposed to those that enrich, heal, and allow us to flourish and thrive.

Could you explain these statement?

Moral statements are supposed to reflect truths that help us improve conditions, or at least maintain a certain level of public decency.

Better conditions for what exactly? Is it true that we should maintain a certain level of public decency or is that just more approvable?

Now I understand...the people I'd like to see locked up are perfectly moral according to their own value system So let me rephrase...I don't want to live in the same community with people whose value systems and morals differ too greatly from mine.

I was making the point that are values are not at all truths, my point still stands.

A non-cognitivist would argue that there is no objective way to determine whether the nazis were morally inferior to their opposition right?

Objectivity and subjectivity are an entirely different topic that may be strongly intertwined but again still different. If by objective you mean "factual" or "void of bias" I would probably say yes myself. Rather that our expressions of approval and disapproval are not truth, nor knowledge. Now, we can still reason, and even convince each other, however we have to have a certain amount of common ground in order to do so. fortunately as a species we all have some common ground for the most part, majority of us wish to coexist with each other, otherwise there wouldn't be societies, governments, etc.