Moral Realism is the Default Within Morality

[Skepdick]

Well ... that is exactly what I said people do, so ... you had some sort of point to make?

Yeah. You seem to lament people for doing it... wanna lead by example?

Actually don't bother, you haven't had an interesting point to make in months.

Ever considered that you may be a junkie pursuing a novelty-fix?

[KLewchuk]

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

Don't know if you are familiar with https://www.thefire.org/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw ... mUEALw_wcB, but apparently they have been busy lately due to the "mob" trying to quell free speech. It appears to me that some of the speech being quelled reflects a certain moral realist position.

Which respect to your response, I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the current intellectual environment (e.g. Derek Parfit is dead; don't think he will be writing anything soon).

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

Don't know if you are familiar with https://www.thefire.org/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw ... mUEALw_wcB, but apparently they have been busy lately due to the "mob" trying to quell free speech. It appears to me that some of the speech being quelled reflects a certain moral realist position.

Which respect to your response, I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the current intellectual environment (e.g. Derek Parfit is dead; don't think he will be writing anything soon).

Morality is fundamentally doing good and avoiding evil.
If one is a moral realist, the moral fact is 'no human ought to kill or harm another'.
As such there is no way for moral realism to condone any evil ideology, thus evil acts.
Therefore if any human were to kill or harm another, it cannot be based on moral realism.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well ... that is exactly what I said people do, so ... you had some sort of point to make?

Yeah. You seem to lament people for doing it

I wasn't lamenting it.

[Skepdick]

I wasn't lamenting it.

So this was... what?

Utter, pointless, worthless, hopeless junk.

[FlashDangerpants]

I wasn't lamenting it.

So this was... what?

Utter, pointless, worthless, hopeless junk.

Just go back and look at the original post where I wrote those things. You are just further misinterpreting and I don't know why or care.

[Skepdick]

Just go back and look at the original post where I wrote those things. You are just further misinterpreting and I don't know why or care.

I don't want to give it a label. I want you to give it a label. Least you insist that I am misinterpreting you.

Ohhhhhhhhh. Fuck! Too late.

[FlashDangerpants]

Just go back and look at the original post where I wrote those things. You are just further misinterpreting and I don't know why or care.

I don't want to give it a label. I want you to give it a label. Least you insist that I am misinterpreting you.

Ohhhhhhhhh. Fuck! Too late.

I don't even understand that one. The simple fact is you didn't read my post properly, and you defintely didn't pay any attention to the context either, and of course as always you want the conversation to be about you anyway. As a result you've tried to force me to hold views that I don't. I don't get what your obsession is with me, but it doesn't go both ways.

[Skepdick]

I don't even understand that one. The simple fact is you didn't read my post properly, and you defintely didn't pay any attention to the context either, and of course as always you want the conversation to be about you anyway. As a result you've tried to force me to hold views that I don't. I don't get what your obsession is with me, but it doesn't go both ways.

I've made the conversation all about you. I am not forcing you to hold any views other than the ones you are already holding. Are you having a hard time telling?

That's why I am giving you the opportunity to self-determine your own behavior.

If this is not "lamentment", then what is it? Give it a name...

Utter, pointless, worthless, hopeless junk.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't even understand that one. The simple fact is you didn't read my post properly, and you defintely didn't pay any attention to the context either, and of course as always you want the conversation to be about you anyway. As a result you've tried to force me to hold views that I don't. I don't get what your obsession is with me, but it doesn't go both ways.

I've made the conversation all about you. I am not forcing you to hold any views other than the ones you are already holding. Are you having a hard time telling?

That's why I am giving you the opportunity to self-determine your own behavior.

If this is not "lamentment", then what is it? Give it a name...

Utter, pointless, worthless, hopeless junk.

The argument that extrapolated from a generic human tendency to treat our own beliefs as things we hold to be true to an assumption that one special set of those beliefs is therefore assumed to actually be true is a hopeless garbage argument.

That's as much exposition as you deserve, no more will be wasted on you.

[Skepdick]

The argument that extrapolated from a generic human tendency to treat our own beliefs as things we hold to be true to an assumption that one special set of those beliefs is therefore assumed to actually be true is a hopeless garbage argument.

Yes. And I confirmed that you are busy exemplifying this human quality. Your assessment of humans (in general) corresponds to your behaviour right now (in particular).

So if you are not lamenting; or self-loathing (by calling your own behaviour "garbage") what is it that you are busy doing?

[FlashDangerpants]

The argument that extrapolated from a generic human tendency to treat our own beliefs as things we hold to be true to an assumption that one special set of those beliefs is therefore assumed to actually be true is a hopeless garbage argument.

Yes. And I confirmed that you are busy exemplifying this human quality. Your assessment of humans (in general) corresponds to your behaviour right now (in particular).

So if you are not lamenting; or self-loathing (by calling your own behaviour "garbage") what is it that you are busy doing?

I was pointing out why an argument is shit. You've been given that information. Now of course we can have your nonsense about not being itnerested in the argument anyway, and how you are just trying to find an excuse to complain about Plato or something.

Just fuck off.

[KLewchuk]

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

Don't know if you are familiar with https://www.thefire.org/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw ... mUEALw_wcB, but apparently they have been busy lately due to the "mob" trying to quell free speech. It appears to me that some of the speech being quelled reflects a certain moral realist position.

Which respect to your response, I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the current intellectual environment (e.g. Derek Parfit is dead; don't think he will be writing anything soon).

Morality is fundamentally doing good and avoiding evil.
If one is a moral realist, the moral fact is 'no human ought to kill or harm another'.
As such there is no way for moral realism to condone any evil ideology, thus evil acts.
Therefore if any human were to kill or harm another, it cannot be based on moral realism.

Generally speaking, this is correct. However, some would disagree with your second premise. For example, there have been society's that condone human sacrifice. If you are a realist, this aspect of these society's is evil. If you are not, you might say that there is no basis to judge between the accepted moralities of different societies.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Don't know if you are familiar with https://www.thefire.org/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw ... mUEALw_wcB, but apparently they have been busy lately due to the "mob" trying to quell free speech. It appears to me that some of the speech being quelled reflects a certain moral realist position.

Which respect to your response, I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the current intellectual environment (e.g. Derek Parfit is dead; don't think he will be writing anything soon).

Morality is fundamentally doing good and avoiding evil.
If one is a moral realist, the moral fact is 'no human ought to kill or harm another'.
As such there is no way for moral realism to condone any evil ideology, thus evil acts.
Therefore if any human were to kill or harm another, it cannot be based on moral realism.

Generally speaking, this is correct. However, some would disagree with your second premise. For example, there have been society's that condone human sacrifice. If you are a realist, this aspect of these society's is evil.

My stance is Moral Empirical Realism with sound justifications, so human sacrifice is immoral.

If you are not, you might say that there is no basis to judge between the accepted moralities of different societies.

If one is not a moral realist, then he may claimed to be a moral subjectivist within cognitivism, i.e. what is morally right is dependent on what the respective societies or individuals believed is morally right to do.

Because outsider cannot judge them in this case, what we could end up with the above [it had already happened] is there is no stopping them from sacrificing humans, commit genocides [Nazis on Jews, and other] and all the terrible evils.

Surely you can use your common sense to judge that 'moral subjectivism' is potentially evil [beside whatever is good].
As such, it would be more rational for you to denounce 'moral subjectivism' and make an attempt to understand the alternative, i.e. moral realism, which fundamentally and by default is morally good as justified empirically and philosophically.

It is from common experiences, common sense and intuition that genocide, slavery, and the likes are evil and imposed terrible sufferings on humans. You would agree to the above?

Since moral subjectivism could lead to the condoning of the above evils, with a bit of thinking, reflection and inference, one should rationally reject moral subjectivism and review other alternatives where moral realism as the default is more likely to be acceptable.

[KLewchuk]

Morality is fundamentally doing good and avoiding evil.
If one is a moral realist, the moral fact is 'no human ought to kill or harm another'.
As such there is no way for moral realism to condone any evil ideology, thus evil acts.
Therefore if any human were to kill or harm another, it cannot be based on moral realism.

Generally speaking, this is correct. However, some would disagree with your second premise. For example, there have been society's that condone human sacrifice. If you are a realist, this aspect of these society's is evil.

My stance is Moral Empirical Realism with sound justifications, so human sacrifice is immoral.

If you are not, you might say that there is no basis to judge between the accepted moralities of different societies.

If one is not a moral realist, then he may claimed to be a moral subjectivist within cognitivism, i.e. what is morally right is dependent on what the respective societies or individuals believed is morally right to do.

Because outsider cannot judge them in this case, what we could end up with the above [it had already happened] is there is no stopping them from sacrificing humans, commit genocides [Nazis on Jews, and other] and all the terrible evils.

Surely you can use your common sense to judge that 'moral subjectivism' is potentially evil [beside whatever is good].
As such, it would be more rational for you to denounce 'moral subjectivism' and make an attempt to understand the alternative, i.e. moral realism, which fundamentally and by default is morally good as justified empirically and philosophically.

It is from common experiences, common sense and intuition that genocide, slavery, and the likes are evil and imposed terrible sufferings on humans. You would agree to the above?

Since moral subjectivism could lead to the condoning of the above evils, with a bit of thinking, reflection and inference, one should rationally reject moral subjectivism and review other alternatives where moral realism as the default is more likely to be acceptable.

Veritas, if your stance is "Moral Empirical Realism with sound justifications", why don't you provide some sound justifications. You state that such acts are atrocities but you don't say why; the issue is that you haven't defined what you mean by "morality". If morality is what the gods say, well... the gods might say "sacrifice". If morality is what the community believes, well... the communities might say "sacrifice". If you want to get away from this you need to provide a definition of morality not based on revelation or community acceptance.