Quote:
To be clear, I am not directly imposing mathematics over morality. I am hoping to learn from the arguments of mathematical realism and apply similar tactics towards moral realism because both are similar systems. A priori metaphysical claims.

Ahhh, I didn't realize you were stemming this off mathematical realism. I thought you were wanting to treat moral ideas as if they were numbers. My apologies.
Quote:
We can prove mathematics in the sense that we can prove a tautological truths. Math is true by virtue of its own definitions. Due to infinite regression problems, math has to ultimately rely on intuitions (as I hope to show morality does). Eventually, proofs boil down to the point that you have to rely on them being insanely obvious. Because if not, one could always ask for another proof of that proof. *If this isn't clear, I can expand. I don't feel like I covered this well.*

You've covered it well, I understand
Quote:
I agree that we cannot prove morality. It relies on intuitions. (I am using that term because it is Descartes and the subsequent arguments. If you don't know the implications of the term, I can flesh that out too).

Right, that's kinda where your'e stuck on with the murder and morality with the others above me.
Quote:
Also, note that you just assumed morality isn't absolute. Something I am contending. As 2+2=/=5, I am contending that murder (without extenuating circumstances) will always be immoral.

I understand my assumption. My counter argument was to show that what your'e proposing wouldn't work on multiple levels, making various assumptions (relative, objective, absolute). However, now that I know for sure your'e making the claim that morality is absolute we can throw out the other assumptions I made as they are no longer relevant. Now we just need to focus on whether or not this could work on the assumption that morality is absolute (although I think your stance on morality is more objective than absolute. To say something is absolute then an action is right/wrong regardless of the context its in. While the action can be justified, and even the lesser of two evils, that still wouldn't make it right. Perhaps you could give yourself more clarity?)
Quote:
Can we hold off on this for just a bit? I have learned that multiple conversations in one thread often lead to more chaos then they are worth. I would like to see your objections; i just want to make sure we give everything its due justice.

Sure no problem! I'll be watching this thread closely so whenever your'e ready to get into this I'll know when to jump in