Moral Realism is the Default Within Morality

[FlashDangerpants]

I know, right, how bad has this subforum gotten? Now we have to deal with bullshit thread, which essentially boils down to nothing more than an observation that people in general tend to think of their beliefs in general as a body of facts. Utter, pointless, worthless, hopeless junk.

Yet here you are. Asserting yourself. As if your beliefs are facts.

Well ... that is exactly what I said people do, so ... you had some sort of point to make? Actually don't bother, you haven't had an interesting point to make in months.

[henry quirk]

as I say: don't let 'em grind you down

Good news, he won't. He's far too stupid to understand the problem, otherwise he wouldn't have quoted the thing pointing out his own failure.

good

[henry quirk]

I know, right, how bad has this subforum gotten? Now we have to deal with bullshit thread, which essentially boils down to nothing more than an observation that people in general tend to think of their beliefs in general as a body of facts. Utter, pointless, worthless, hopeless junk.

Yet here you are. Asserting yourself. As if your beliefs are facts.

that's what they do, skep: like crabs in the pot

[KLewchuk]

This is why the following survey found a majority of moral philosophers are Moral Realists;

Veritas,

Perhaps my perception is skewed but I would need to say "no". It appears to me that the current domain of morality and ethics has been overwhelmed by post-modernism, intersectionality, etc., which is counter to concepts of moral truth.

To be clear, I am a moral realist but would assert that it appears that I am in the minority rather than the majority at this time.

I wonder you have done sufficient research on the subject of morality and ethics.

Note the survey above where 56% of philosophers in 2009 were inclined to Moral Realism whereas only 28 are anti-realists.
I don't think the % had changed that drastically since 2009 and its is more likely it has increased.

Because Moral Realism is the default it will remain dominant and more so because Moral Realism is well grounded, justified empirically and philosophically.

The anti-Moral-Realists i.e. the noncognitivists has very loose and flimsy philosophies and they have kept changing their stance ever since they first faced opposition till the present, where their anti-realist views have shifted and are creeping more and more towards realism.
Note the latest escape route for the anti-Moral-Realists is that of Quasi-Realism.

Veritas, it depends on how you are defining "domain of Morality and Ethics". If your definition is a survey on Wikipedia, then I would definitely agree: 56% is greater than 28%.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas,

Perhaps my perception is skewed but I would need to say "no". It appears to me that the current domain of morality and ethics has been overwhelmed by post-modernism, intersectionality, etc., which is counter to concepts of moral truth.

To be clear, I am a moral realist but would assert that it appears that I am in the minority rather than the majority at this time.

I wonder you have done sufficient research on the subject of morality and ethics.

Note the survey above where 56% of philosophers in 2009 were inclined to Moral Realism whereas only 28 are anti-realists.
I don't think the % had changed that drastically since 2009 and its is more likely it has increased.

Because Moral Realism is the default it will remain dominant and more so because Moral Realism is well grounded, justified empirically and philosophically.

The anti-Moral-Realists i.e. the noncognitivists has very loose and flimsy philosophies and they have kept changing their stance ever since they first faced opposition till the present, where their anti-realist views have shifted and are creeping more and more towards realism.
Note the latest escape route for the anti-Moral-Realists is that of Quasi-Realism.

Veritas, it depends on how you are defining "domain of Morality and Ethics". If your definition is a survey on Wikipedia, then I would definitely agree: 56% is greater than 28%.

What I defined as "domain of Morality and Ethics" is acceptable within the community of Western Philosophers at present.
That 56% cannot be taken too seriously but at least it show that Moral Realism is not in the minority like 5-10%.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, let's see. Could it be that to call something morally right or wrong is not to ascribe a property, in the way we do when we call a house 'white'? Where's your evidence that moral rightness or wrongness are empirically verifiable properties like whiteness? If they are properties, how can people rationally call, say, capital punishment both morally right and morally wrong? Are we all stupid or blind to the supposed moral property belonging to capital punishment? Ffs, THINK.

Why Moral Realism is realistic?
nb: [mine]

Advantages For Moral Realism

Moral realism allows the ordinary rules of logic (modus ponens, etc.) to be applied straightforwardly to moral statements.
We can say that a moral belief is false or unjustified or contradictory in the same way we would about a factual belief.
[However] This is a problem for expressivism [nonCognitivism], as shown by the Frege–Geach problem.

Another advantage of moral realism is its capacity to resolve moral disagreements: if two moral beliefs contradict one another, realism says that they cannot both be right, and therefore everyone involved ought to be seeking out the right answer to resolve the disagreement.

Contrary theories of meta-ethics have trouble even formulating the statement "this moral belief is wrong," and so they cannot resolve disagreements in this way.

Do you have any dispute with the above claims?

Yes, because the argument is specious.

1 Logical form (ponens, tollens, etc), and logic in general, is about consistency, and has nothing to do with the truth-value of premises. So an argument consisting of nothing but moral assertions can easily be valid. For example: 1 If x is morally wrong, then y is morally wrong. 2 X is morally wrong. 3 Therefore, y is morally wrong. The claim that moral realism uniquely allows this is false, because moral non-realism allows it too. Truth-value is the issue here, and logical consistency doesn't confer truth-value on premises.

Logical form is a basic necessity and I agree logic do not guarantee certainty or even assurance of truth.

The point here is that moral facts deniers like you have been condemning that moral realists are irrational in accepting ought from is.
So in this case the moral realist defense is moral realism claims are logical even overcoming the is-ought problem with special premises with elements of speech acts and other intermediate premises.

2 A thing either does or doesn't exist, and that has nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with logic in the first place. Moral realism is the claim that there is a moral reality consisting of moral things. And the burden of proof is with moral realists, unmet so far, to my knowledge.

Hey, you are the one who is claiming 'what is fact' by relying on logic and language. How can you be so ignorant of what you are doing?
If you clear away the cobwebs of your language, what is fact to you has to be the facts of Science as the most credible fact.

On the other hand, I had been claiming logic and language are necessary but what is most critical is whatever is claimed as true must be justified empirically and philosophically which should be similar to scientific knowledge.

I have already justified the moral fact, e.g. 'no human ought to kill another' with empirical based arguments and philosophical arguments a "1000" times in this forum.
But you are so ignorant, dogmatic and enslaved by confirmation bias, you just avoid and ignore the rationality of my arguments.

3 And as for dispute resolution, this claim is demonstrably false, given the absence of evidence for the existence of a moral reality to which disputants can appeal. For example, the argument about the moral justification for capital punishment necessarily devolves to foundational moral beliefs, which can always clash.

The issue of capital punishment is grounded on the moral fact 'no human ought to kill another'. As mentioned I had justified this moral fact a "1000" times.
You have also requested me to repeat it a "1000" times and I have done that, I am not going to do it again. You can refer to what I had written previously.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I told you months ago that your moral realist theory, along with all the competing moral realist theories, are worthless junk specifically because they cannot do the above. If either of you could, then you would have shown why Henry is wrong, or else Henry would show why you are wrong in cases where you both claim moral realism to incompatible claims. Instead you both opted to try and make common cause in spite of your competing truth claims. One person insisting it is a universal moral truth that no human can ever kill another is strictly and utterly incompatible with the claims of the other that any number of crimes must end with a good old fashioned lynching.

So what's supposed to be the advantage there?

Agreed - and nicely put. We ask for a moral fact: a moral thing that exists, or a moral assertion that's true, in the sense that it could be false if things were different - as could any factual assertion. Response: nothing. But hey, there's a moral reality, so there are moral facts, so morality is objective. Cognitive dissonance, or what?

You are the ignorant one.

• "there's a moral reality, "
  as evidenced empirically and discussed [basically do good and avoid evil deeds] within humanity since the ancients.
  
  "there are moral facts"
  as justified empirically and philosophically
  
  "morality is objective."
  As justified within the 7 Dimensions of Objectivity [Kramer] and other criteria of objectivity.

Point is, moral realism is the default and justifiably true.
However moral realists do not agree with every claims. just like the common realists do not agree with every claims of facts between various individuals and groups.
There are serious disagreements between scientists on certain scientific issues, does that mean science is subjective and unrealiable? THINK!

Re Henry in the sense as a moral realist re intuitionism, we agree with the moral fact, "no human ought to enslave another."
I have provided the empirical evidences and philosophical arguments to confirm that Henry's intuition re slavery is true and this is so evident with the moral improvements re chattel slavery from since >20,000 years ago to its present status.

Note this clue for further reflection on your part ;

• 1. Chattel Slavery is a moral issue
  2. The statistics of reduction in chattel slavery since >20,000 years ago is a moral fact.
  3. This moral fact of reduction must be due to some moral process.
  4. This moral process has its own moral properties and function
  5. This moral properties and functions are moral facts.
  6. Therefore moral facts exist.

The above justify there are moral facts and what is to be done is to investigate and justify what are the details of these moral facts.

[Peter Holmes]

Why Moral Realism is realistic?
nb: [mine]




Do you have any dispute with the above claims?

Yes, because the argument is specious.

1 Logical form (ponens, tollens, etc), and logic in general, is about consistency, and has nothing to do with the truth-value of premises. So an argument consisting of nothing but moral assertions can easily be valid. For example: 1 If x is morally wrong, then y is morally wrong. 2 X is morally wrong. 3 Therefore, y is morally wrong. The claim that moral realism uniquely allows this is false, because moral non-realism allows it too. Truth-value is the issue here, and logical consistency doesn't confer truth-value on premises.

Logical form is a basic necessity and I agree logic do not guarantee certainty or even assurance of truth.

The point here is that moral facts deniers like you have been condemning that moral realists are irrational in accepting ought from is.
So in this case the moral realist defense is moral realism claims are logical even overcoming the is-ought problem with special premises with elements of speech acts and other intermediate premises.

Along with other moral realists, you haven't demonstrated how an is can entail an ought. The special premises you insert merely claim an entailment, which begs the question. So validity isn't the problem.

2 A thing either does or doesn't exist, and that has nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with logic in the first place. Moral realism is the claim that there is a moral reality consisting of moral things. And the burden of proof is with moral realists, unmet so far, to my knowledge.

Hey, you are the one who is claiming 'what is fact' by relying on logic and language. How can you be so ignorant of what you are doing?
If you clear away the cobwebs of your language, what is fact to you has to be the facts of Science as the most credible fact.

And there's not one scientific fact (true factual assertion) that entails a moral conclusion. And you've just said that moral realism is logical - a linguistic matter. Where's the actual, physical, empirical, scientific evidence for a moral reality consisting of moral things? You have none - hence the pathetic retreat back to language.

On the other hand, I had been claiming logic and language are necessary but what is most critical is whatever is claimed as true must be justified empirically and philosophically which should be similar to scientific knowledge.

Agreed. I refer to my previous remark.

I have already justified the moral fact, e.g. 'no human ought to kill another' with empirical based arguments and philosophical arguments a "1000" times in this forum.
But you are so ignorant, dogmatic and enslaved by confirmation bias, you just avoid and ignore the rationality of my arguments.

No, you haven't justified it. You've just repeated the claim, and I and others have repeatedly explained why it's false.

3 And as for dispute resolution, this claim is demonstrably false, given the absence of evidence for the existence of a moral reality to which disputants can appeal. For example, the argument about the moral justification for capital punishment necessarily devolves to foundational moral beliefs, which can always clash.

The issue of capital punishment is grounded on the moral fact 'no human ought to kill another'. As mentioned I had justified this moral fact a "1000" times.

This is ridiculous. What about war and extreme self-defence? Whither your supposed moral fact then? You can qualify and prevaricate as much as you like, but the fact is there are situations in which it's arguably not only morally justifiable but even morally required to kill another human. And that shows there's no moral fact of the matter. There are just (often conflicting) moral judgements.

You have also requested me to repeat it a "1000" times and I have done that, I am not going to do it again. You can refer to what I had written previously.

So, you really have no example of a moral fact. 'No human ought to kill another human' obviously isn't a fact - but that's your gold standard. Way to go.

[KLewchuk]

I wonder you have done sufficient research on the subject of morality and ethics.

Note the survey above where 56% of philosophers in 2009 were inclined to Moral Realism whereas only 28 are anti-realists.
I don't think the % had changed that drastically since 2009 and its is more likely it has increased.

Because Moral Realism is the default it will remain dominant and more so because Moral Realism is well grounded, justified empirically and philosophically.

The anti-Moral-Realists i.e. the noncognitivists has very loose and flimsy philosophies and they have kept changing their stance ever since they first faced opposition till the present, where their anti-realist views have shifted and are creeping more and more towards realism.
Note the latest escape route for the anti-Moral-Realists is that of Quasi-Realism.

Veritas, it depends on how you are defining "domain of Morality and Ethics". If your definition is a survey on Wikipedia, then I would definitely agree: 56% is greater than 28%.

What I defined as "domain of Morality and Ethics" is acceptable within the community of Western Philosophers at present.
That 56% cannot be taken too seriously but at least it show that Moral Realism is not in the minority like 5-10%.

I think that Moral Realism is not currently "in vogue" or "politically correct". Are 56% pf moral philosophers moral realists per an anonymous survey? Interesting, but plausible. Would 56% take a vocal moral realist stance in their writing and teaching at Universities today? Methinks that is debate-able.

It appears to me, again... open to correction, that much of moral philosophy has been corrupted by post-modernism and critical theory (for example, Tommy Curry out of Edinburgh... amazingly, but then again... they have toppled Hume). To the extent it has not been corrupted, it has been silenced.

I may be over-stating, but I think I am directionally correct.

[henry quirk]

As I had stated before Henry's approach is that of Moral Intuitionism. He is very intuitively right on track with Moral Intuitionism.

yes, it is, and, yes, I am

here's another guy on the right track...

https://www.libertarianism.org/publicat ... rtarianism

...the tweedle bros. will pooh-pooh

fuck 'em

[FlashDangerpants]

So let's just review how empty your bullshit is. This is claimed to be an advantage of your moral realism...

Advantages For Moral Realism

Moral realism allows the ordinary rules of logic (modus ponens, etc.) to be applied straightforwardly to moral statements.
We can say that a moral belief is false or unjustified or contradictory in the same way we would about a factual belief.
[However] This is a problem for expressivism [nonCognitivism], as shown by the Frege–Geach problem.

Another advantage of moral realism is its capacity to resolve moral disagreements: if two moral beliefs contradict one another, realism says that they cannot both be right, and therefore everyone involved ought to be seeking out the right answer to resolve the disagreement.

Can what you are flogging live up to the hype? Of course not, because Henry and Vestibule are a pair of empty shirts.
According to one, THE BIG SINGULAR MORAL FACT is that there is no good reason ever to kill another person
According to the other, there are many good reasons to kill another person.

But when this is noted, in relation to that big claim that moral realism grants "capacity to resolve moral disagreements" you are both completely shit, and just make excuses for each other.

Quit inundating us with these angry stupid threads if you can't get your shit together to deliver on any of your boasts.

[henry quirk]

empty shirt

quite full, thank you very much

just ate pasta & shrimp...enough to choke a horse


angry stupid threads

ain't nobody obligated to read 'em, so: toddle on... *









*edited out an unkindness...my apologies

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, because the argument is specious.

1 Logical form (ponens, tollens, etc), and logic in general, is about consistency, and has nothing to do with the truth-value of premises. So an argument consisting of nothing but moral assertions can easily be valid. For example: 1 If x is morally wrong, then y is morally wrong. 2 X is morally wrong. 3 Therefore, y is morally wrong. The claim that moral realism uniquely allows this is false, because moral non-realism allows it too. Truth-value is the issue here, and logical consistency doesn't confer truth-value on premises.

Logical form is a basic necessity and I agree logic do not guarantee certainty or even assurance of truth.

The point here is that moral facts deniers like you have been condemning that moral realists are irrational in accepting ought from is.
So in this case the moral realist defense is moral realism claims are logical even overcoming the is-ought problem with special premises with elements of speech acts and other intermediate premises.

Along with other moral realists, you haven't demonstrated how an is can entail an ought. The special premises you insert merely claim an entailment, which begs the question. So validity isn't the problem.

To fall back on the is-ought problem demonstrate your bankruptcy in terms of the knowledge in the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
Hume is-ought problem is purely a language and logical issue which you yourself admit logic do not assure certainty nor truth.
It is the same with Hume No Effect From Cause problem of induction, but in reality and truth, scientists don't give a damn about it and yet produce the most productive knowledge for humanity to progress.

The is-ought problem is a trivial issue to the Morality and Ethics.

• Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758

I have demonstrated how the is-ought can be resolved taking by including relevant features without distorting the logical processes, note these threads I have raised so far, but you do not have any convincing counters to them;

• •Is-Ought Gap Neutral to Moral Realism - Brink
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30499
  
  •IS-OUGHT Problem Resolved - Philosophical Anti-Realist Approach
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30254
  
  •Searles' Is-Ought Argument detailed argument
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30045
  •How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824
  
  •IS-OUGHT - New Argument. Both ‘Ought’ ‘Is’ conditioned by Humans
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29843
  
  •Charles Pigden: Is-Ought - No Impact on Moral Objectivity -Hume's NOFI to counter moral objectivity is mistaken
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29757
  
  •"Oughting from IS" is a Fact.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29580
  
  •Ought - IS Problem -"No human[s] ought to destroy* Earth to the extent it is inhabitable for any human being"
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27458
  
  •‘OUGHT from IS’ is Possible Tue Aug 27, 2019 My proof
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

There are more to the above and I will be presenting them - including those from the basis of rationality of reason [re Alan Gewirth] without relying on an empirical elements at all.

Btw, sound upon denying moral facts exist, the onus is on YOU to prove your own stance in Morality and Ethics. There is no way out for you because a moral-fact-denial view is not possible since you'll be faced with a solid barrier, i.e.

The Frege-Geach Problem Destroyed NonCognitivism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30150

What is worst is you are merely making noises and relying on farts from others of your gang who are moral ignoramuses.

2 A thing either does or doesn't exist, and that has nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with logic in the first place. Moral realism is the claim that there is a moral reality consisting of moral things. And the burden of proof is with moral realists, unmet so far, to my knowledge.

Hey, you are the one who is claiming 'what is fact' by relying on logic and language. How can you be so ignorant of what you are doing?
If you clear away the cobwebs of your language, what is fact to you has to be the facts of Science as the most credible fact.

And there's not one scientific fact (true factual assertion) that entails a moral conclusion. And you've just said that moral realism is logical - a linguistic matter. Where's the actual, physical, empirical, scientific evidence for a moral reality consisting of moral things? You have none - hence the pathetic retreat back to language.

I had already demonstrated whatever is fact is derived from its specific FSK.
The Moral FSK rely on scientific facts and others to generate its moral facts.
It is the same with the legal FSK which relied on scientific facts and knowledge plus other empirical facts to generate legal facts.

On the other hand, I had been claiming logic and language are necessary but what is most critical is whatever is claimed as true must be justified empirically and philosophically which should be similar to scientific knowledge.

Agreed. I refer to my previous remark.

Note the common knowledge and biological knowledge, 'all human ought to breathe else they die' is relied upon to generate moral facts within the Moral FSK.

I have already justified the moral fact, e.g. 'no human ought to kill another' with empirical based arguments and philosophical arguments a "1000" times in this forum.
But you are so ignorant, dogmatic and enslaved by confirmation bias, you just avoid and ignore the rationality of my arguments.

No, you haven't justified it. You've just repeated the claim, and I and others have repeatedly explained why it's false.

Don't bring in the fallacy of ad populum. In addition the handful who agreed with you are moral ignoramuses.
One clue to the claim 'no human ought to kill another' is that it is enacted a criminal act in all sovereign nation with exceptions.
However within a moral FSK which is not political there are no exception to 'no killing another human'. This moral fact is relied upon as a Guide only.
I have also supported this moral fact with its relevant neural algorithm.
With the taxonomy of Morality and Ethics, this is Moral_Realism-Naturalism.
You have not provided any solid counter to the above.

This is ridiculous. What about war and extreme self-defence? Whither your supposed moral fact then? You can qualify and prevaricate as much as you like, but the fact is there are situations in which it's arguably not only morally justifiable but even morally required to kill another human. And that shows there's no moral fact of the matter. There are just (often conflicting) moral judgements.

You and Sculptor had been bringing up the above exceptions "a-1000" times but I have already countered them.

The moral fact 'no human ought to kill another' within the human DNA and represented by a neural algorithm of ought-not-to.
That human make exceptions [war, self-defense, etc.] to the above do not eliminate that inherent fact within their brain.
While the moral fact of ought-not to kill another human will not change that easily, humanity can align with this ought by eliminating wars, violence threat [so nothing to defend from] and other issue that threaten premature death from killing.

So, you really have no example of a moral fact. 'No human ought to kill another human' obviously isn't a fact - but that's your gold standard. Way to go.

As explained above 'No human ought to kill another human' is a moral fact.
I had argued your basis of what is fact is merely linguistic and not even sufficient to represent what is fact epistemologically and ontologically.
In addition, whatever justified statements and judgments generated from a Moral FSK are moral facts.

What is so pathetic is you are making [moral] claims arrogantly without sufficient knowledge of what Morality and Ethics encompass effectively.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas, it depends on how you are defining "domain of Morality and Ethics". If your definition is a survey on Wikipedia, then I would definitely agree: 56% is greater than 28%.

What I defined as "domain of Morality and Ethics" is acceptable within the community of Western Philosophers at present.
That 56% cannot be taken too seriously but at least it show that Moral Realism is not in the minority like 5-10%.

I think that Moral Realism is not currently "in vogue" or "politically correct". Are 56% pf moral philosophers moral realists per an anonymous survey? Interesting, but plausible. Would 56% take a vocal moral realist stance in their writing and teaching at Universities today? Methinks that is debate-able.

It appears to me, again... open to correction, that much of moral philosophy has been corrupted by post-modernism and critical theory (for example, Tommy Curry out of Edinburgh... amazingly, but then again... they have toppled Hume). To the extent it has not been corrupted, it has been silenced.

I may be over-stating, but I think I am directionally correct.

Those who claimed to be Moral Realist - since it is the default - are and had never been shy with their stance. They have written [still writing] tons of book on Moral Realism.

Note the point from the same article;
Some notable examples of robust moral realists include David Brink,[8] John McDowell, Peter Railton,[9] Geoffrey Sayre-McCord,[10] Michael Smith, Terence Cuneo,[11] Russ Shafer-Landau,[12] G. E. Moore,[13] John Finnis, Richard Boyd, Nicholas Sturgeon,[14] Thomas Nagel and Derek Parfit. Norman Geras has argued that Karl Marx was a moral realist.[15] Moral realism has been studied in the various philosophical and practical applications.

Yes, Hume's theory has been toppled.
Whist Hume is-ought problem is notable it is no more as a barrier in the mainstream of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.

Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29758

[Atla]

The moral fact 'no human ought to kill another' within the human DNA and represented by a neural algorithm of ought-not-to.
That human make exceptions [war, self-defense, etc.] to the above do not eliminate that inherent fact within their brain.

In the past you've proven that you have absolutely no fucking clue what concepts like fact, principle, independence, noumenon, interdependence, subjectivity, objectivity, realism etc. mean.

Looks like you also have absolutely no fucking clue what 'morality' means. Morality mostly deals with the exceptions [war, self-defense, etc.], which go against most people's drive to not kill other humans.

How can you be so unfathomably retarded? What's the story behind this?