Survey: 56% of Philosophers Accept Moral Realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

A note to the arrogant moral anti-realists and non-cognitivists like Peter Holmes, Sculptor, Pantflasher and the likes on where they stand with a group of philosophers [not ordinary people] in the following survey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

• A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[5] found that
  56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism
  (28%: anti-realism;
  16%: other).[6]
  
  Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?
  Accept or lean toward:
  cognitivism 612/931 (65.7%)
  Other 161/931 (17.3%)
  non-cognitivism 158/931 (17.0%)

From the above 56% of philosophers surveyed accept Moral Realism, which inferred they are moral objectivists.

65.7% of the philosophers surveyed accept Cognitivism which mean they accept there are moral propositions which are truth-apt, i.e. can be true or false, i.e. not arbitrarily subjective, thus objective.

I am not relying on the above survey as argumentum ad populum and insist my stance of Moral Empirical Realism [not of God nor Plato's forms] is right. I have provided various justifications and argument for my views.

But that the majority of philosophers accept Moral Realism and Cognitivism should stir doubts in their opponents [Peter Holmes, Sculptor, Pantflasher and the likes]. They should do more thorough research on morality & ethics to justify their claims more solidly rather than be so arrogant, bigoted and dogmatic based on their bastardized philosophy inherited from the logical positivists and analytic philosophy.

Views?

[Impenitent]

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

I am not relying on the above survey as argumentum ad populum...

Then why does it even matter how many philosophers accept what?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am not relying on the above survey as argumentum ad populum...

Then why does it even matter how many philosophers accept what?

Rationally, one cannot jump to conclusion the majority's view is true.
But as I had stated such a high % [by philosophers not ordinary people] will give at least some basis to support one's view [moral realism in this case] in a way.

If one's view is in the minority, especially in Peter Holmes' unjustified claim, then one must be intellectually responsible to explore and understand [not necessary agree] the majority's views and basis of justifications.

[Peter Holmes]

I am not relying on the above survey as argumentum ad populum...

Then why does it even matter how many philosophers accept what?

Rationally, one cannot jump to conclusion the majority's view is true.
But as I had stated such a high % [by philosophers not ordinary people] will give at least some basis to support one's view [moral realism in this case] in a way.

If one's view is in the minority, especially in Peter Holmes' unjustified claim, then one must be intellectually responsible to explore and understand [not necessary agree] the majority's views and basis of justifications.

Lucky that I and others do understand the arguments for moral realism, and that we have repeatedly refuted them.

Sound argument is all that ever matters. Numbers and reputations are irrelevant.

[Immanuel Can]

Rationally, one cannot jump to conclusion the majority's view is true.
But as I had stated such a high % [by philosophers not ordinary people] will give at least some basis to support one's view [moral realism in this case] in a way.

Bandwagon fallacy.

No number justifies such a "basis." The majority is often just wrong.

Personally, I accept moral realism. But I point out that your argument for it, in this case, does not work.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Then why does it even matter how many philosophers accept what?

Rationally, one cannot jump to conclusion the majority's view is true.
But as I had stated such a high % [by philosophers not ordinary people] will give at least some basis to support one's view [moral realism in this case] in a way.

If one's view is in the minority, especially in Peter Holmes' unjustified claim, then one must be intellectually responsible to explore and understand [not necessary agree] the majority's views and basis of justifications.

Lucky that I and others do understand the arguments for moral realism, and that we have repeatedly refuted them.

Sound argument is all that ever matters. Numbers and reputations are irrelevant.

I had stated I am not relying on that % to justify my arguments but merely pointed out it is a clue that you need to research what these Moral Realists are talking about.
Btw, you are the one who is crying for majority rule merely based on 'I and others' when there is only two others i.e. Sculptor and PantFlasher.

From you have posted, you merely assume you understand Moral Realism which you think are those of the theists and of Plato's universals with their claims of extrasomatic moral truths.

What you are ignorant of is Moral Realism related to Moral Empirical Realism and Moral Naturalism which is similar to Scientific Realism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Rationally, one cannot jump to conclusion the majority's view is true.
But as I had stated such a high % [by philosophers not ordinary people] will give at least some basis to support one's view [moral realism in this case] in a way.

Bandwagon fallacy.

No number justifies such a "basis." The majority is often just wrong.

Personally, I accept moral realism. But I point out that your argument for it, in this case, does not work.

I have already stated above we cannot rely on the 'majority's view' based on numbers.
What is critical are sound arguments and justifications that support the conclusion.

Theists claim the moral rules are independent from an independent God, thus in a way they claim it is objective and within philosophical realism.

But within the moral taxonomy, theistic morality belongs to the Moral Relativist category.

Theistic morality is relative to theists as a group, thus it is categorized within the Moral Relativism-Group in contrast to Moral Relativism-Individuals. Others that belong to the Moral Relativism-Group are those morality from different cultures, traditions and various groups.

To qualify as Moral Realism [in my case Moral Empirical Realism] it must be naturalistic and justified as real empirically and philosophically, just like Science, albeit relying on the Moral Framework and System.

Theistic morality cannot be 'real' i.e. realism until it is proven and justified which is cannot be because God is an impossibility to be real.

[Immanuel Can]

Rationally, one cannot jump to conclusion the majority's view is true.
But as I had stated such a high % [by philosophers not ordinary people] will give at least some basis to support one's view [moral realism in this case] in a way.

Bandwagon fallacy.

No number justifies such a "basis." The majority is often just wrong.

Personally, I accept moral realism. But I point out that your argument for it, in this case, does not work.

I have already stated above we cannot rely on the 'majority's view' based on numbers.
What is critical are sound arguments and justifications that support the conclusion.

Yes, you did. But then you also gave the numbers as if you still thought they should count for something. They shouldn't.

So what if 56% of the philosophers should be moral realists? That still means that almost half are not, and in any case, both facts are utterly irrelevant to the question.

So you need to be consistent. Either it matters or it does not matter how many people believe a thing. And the right answer is that it doesn't matter at all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Bandwagon fallacy.

No number justifies such a "basis." The majority is often just wrong.

Personally, I accept moral realism. But I point out that your argument for it, in this case, does not work.

I have already stated above we cannot rely on the 'majority's view' based on numbers.
What is critical are sound arguments and justifications that support the conclusion.

Yes, you did. But then you also gave the numbers as if you still thought they should count for something. They shouldn't.

So what if 56% of the philosophers should be moral realists? That still means that almost half are not, and in any case, both facts are utterly irrelevant to the question.

So you need to be consistent. Either it matters or it does not matter how many people believe a thing. And the right answer is that it doesn't matter at all.

The relevant point here is Peter Holmes [Moral Relativism] always claim
"I and others had proven you [me] are wrong many times'
- my position is Moral Realism.
Peter's 'others' comprised only of 'Sculptor' and 'Pantflasher'.

My counter to the above is,
In a survey of philosophers, 56% agreed with Moral Realism.

As such the above comparison is do matter in a way in the sense that if Peter Holmes is philosophically responsible, he should research what these 56% of philosophers represent in terms of Moral Realism.

Note, many theists often claim the majority of people, i.e. >80% believe in a God which imply their claims has some kind of substance to it.
It is because of this 80% that I decide to research in depth to find out whether there are truths to theism.
The conclusion of my research is
'God is an impossibility to be real'
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[Age]

I have already stated above we cannot rely on the 'majority's view' based on numbers.
What is critical are sound arguments and justifications that support the conclusion.

Yes, you did. But then you also gave the numbers as if you still thought they should count for something. They shouldn't.

So what if 56% of the philosophers should be moral realists? That still means that almost half are not, and in any case, both facts are utterly irrelevant to the question.

So you need to be consistent. Either it matters or it does not matter how many people believe a thing. And the right answer is that it doesn't matter at all.

The relevant point here is Peter Holmes [Moral Relativism] always claim
"I and others had proven you [me] are wrong many times'
- my position is Moral Realism.
Peter's 'others' comprised only of 'Sculptor' and 'Pantflasher'.

My counter to the above is,
In a survey of philosophers, 56% agreed with Moral Realism.

As such the above comparison is do matter in a way in the sense that if Peter Holmes is philosophically responsible, he should research what these 56% of philosophers represent in terms of Moral Realism.

Note, many theists often claim the majority of people, i.e. >80% believe in a God which imply their claims has some kind of substance to it.
It is because of this 80% that I decide to research in depth to find out whether there are truths to theism.
The conclusion of my research is
'God is an impossibility to be real'
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Why do you keep bringing up this post, as though it is irrefutably correct?

Your argument was;
P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.

However,
P1. Absolute perfection already exists.
P2. God exists in this absolute perfect form, which already exists.
C. Therefore, God is not just a possibility to be real but already actually does really exist.

'you', "veritas aequitas", are just not open to this fact. 'you' have a belief to uphold and sustain, and so you are closed off from what the actual Truth IS.

[Immanuel Can]

My counter to the above is,
In a survey of philosophers, 56% agreed with Moral Realism.

Bad counter. It doesn't matter who agrees with you, or how many there are.

That's Bandwagon Fallacy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My counter to the above is,
In a survey of philosophers, 56% agreed with Moral Realism.

Bad counter. It doesn't matter who agrees with you, or how many there are.

That's Bandwagon Fallacy.

You don't seem to have a good grasp of logic. Note,

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
  Other names for the Argumentum_ad_populum fallacy include common belief fallacy or appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument from consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,[7][10] consensus gentium (Latin for "agreement of the people"),[10] democratic fallacy,[11] and mob appeal.[12]

I have already stated I was not making any serious arguments and drawing any logical conclusion from that survey.

It was meant merely to be a clue and hint for Moral anti-realists to do further research related to what those 56% of Moral Realists represent.

[Immanuel Can]

It was meant merely to be a clue and hint for Moral anti-realists to do further research related to what those 56% of Moral Realists represent.

Well, as a "hint" and a "clue," I suppose you can appeal to it, as long as you rest no claim on it. As an argument, you can't legitimately do so. But since you say you are not premising any argument on it, you're fine.