Moral realism is true

[bahman]

Our life is not indifferent since there are likes and dislikes.
The moral facts are related to likes and dislikes.
Therefore, moral facts exist.
Therefore, moral realism is true.

Your argument is very slipshod. You should at least defined what is 'Morality' and 'fact' first before you proceed.

• Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
  
  A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
  Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The implication for the above re fact is, all facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK, in the above case, it is the scientific FSK.
Once the fact emerges from a specific FSK it is independent of individual[s] mind but not the collective mind.
As such, moral facts emerge and are conditioned upon a specific moral FSK, thus independent of the individual[s]' mind.

Your 'likes and dislikes' do not qualify as moral facts [as defined above] because 'likes' and 'dislikes' in this case are conditioned [very subjective] upon individual[s] sentiments, i.e. not independent.

Thus your argument is not valid.

The fact that likes and dislikes are different among individuals does not invalidate my argument.

[bahman]

I agree with what you said except for the fact that a masochist is not stupid.

In my book: anybody who seeks out pain becuz they find it pleasurable is moron or a crazy person.

It seems that you like your life a lot!

I really do, and I'll tolerate a lot to preserve and further it.
(won't tolerate the leash, though...I'm dead or the leash-holder is...there's no other option)

I had sleep paralysis a few times. It is an awful experience.

[bahman]

Now, with this one I can't agree.

Moral fact has nuthin' to do with like, dislikes, or preferences.

Moral fact, like any other fact, is about what is.

Fire burns no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it.

What if there is no one to experience the fire. The fire still burns but who cares?

What has this got to do with ANY 'thing' here?

I am arguing against moral objectivism.

[henry quirk]

I agree with what you said except for the fact that a masochist is not stupid.

In my book: anybody who seeks out pain becuz they find it pleasurable is moron or a crazy person.

It seems that you like your life a lot!

I really do, and I'll tolerate a lot to preserve and further it.
(won't tolerate the leash, though...I'm dead or the leash-holder is...there's no other option)

I had sleep paralysis a few times. It is an awful experience.

Would you wanna be rubbed out becuz of it?

[henry quirk]

I am arguing against moral objectivism.

[bahman]

In my book: anybody who seeks out pain becuz they find it pleasurable is moron or a crazy person.



I really do, and I'll tolerate a lot to preserve and further it.
(won't tolerate the leash, though...I'm dead or the leash-holder is...there's no other option)

I had sleep paralysis a few times. It is an awful experience.

Would you wanna be rubbed out becuz of it?

Oh well, if it was permanent then I definitely go for death. I couldn't stand it for a few seconds.

[bahman]

I am arguing against moral objectivism.

I mean mind-independent thing including moral objectivism is not true.

[henry quirk]

I had sleep paralysis a few times. It is an awful experience.

Would you wanna be rubbed out becuz of it?

Oh well, if it was permanent then I definitely go for death. I couldn't stand it for a few seconds.

Then make sure your will stipulates what you want done.

Me: I wanna live till I can't live no more.

[bahman]

Would you wanna be rubbed out becuz of it?

Oh well, if it was permanent then I definitely go for death. I couldn't stand it for a few seconds.

Then make sure your will stipulates what you want done.

Sure.

Me: I wanna live till I can't live no more.

That is your right.

[henry quirk]

I am arguing against moral objectivism.

I mean mind-independent thing including moral objectivism is not true.

I'm confused. Moral realism and moral objectivism are generally synonymous. How do you distinguish between them?

[bahman]

I mean mind-independent thing including moral objectivism is not true.

I'm confused. Moral realism and moral objectivism are generally synonymous. How do you distinguish between them?

Some philosophers make a distinction. Moral facts exist in both views. But moral facts are considered objective, mind-independent in moral objectivism.

[henry quirk]

I mean mind-independent thing including moral objectivism is not true.

I'm confused. Moral realism and moral objectivism are generally synonymous. How do you distinguish between them?

Some philosophers make a distinction. Moral facts exist in both views. But moral facts are considered objective, mind-independent in moral objectivism.

But how can a fact (moral or otherwise) be subjective and mind-dependent?

Fire burns, for example, is both objective and mind-independent. It can't be otherwise. If it were, it would be an opinion, not a fact.

[bahman]

I'm confused. Moral realism and moral objectivism are generally synonymous. How do you distinguish between them?

Some philosophers make a distinction. Moral facts exist in both views. But moral facts are considered objective, mind-independent in moral objectivism.

But how can a fact (moral or otherwise) be subjective and mind-dependent?

To me, a fact is something that is experienced and understood by an intelligent mind. It is in the category of thoughts but it is true.

Fire burns, for example, is both objective and mind-independent. It can't be otherwise. If it were, it would be an opinion, not a fact.

There cannot be any reality without a mind in my view. I have an argument for it, the argument of contingency: Anything that is subject to change owes its existence to something else. This leads to regress unless there is something changeless, the so-called mind, that is the cause of changeable things.

[henry quirk]

To me, a fact is something that is experienced and understood by an intelligent mind. It is in the category of thoughts but it is true.

I reckon: a fact is a true statement.

Fire burns is a fact. Fire is bad! is an opnion.

A moral fact, as morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on another, then is is a true statement about what is and isn't permissible between and among men.

*Slavery is wrong is a fact. Eating meat is wrong is an opinion.

There cannot be any reality without a mind in my view.

Sure, the First Mind.




*why it's wrong is another kettle of fish, which we can dive into if you like

[bahman]

To me, a fact is something that is experienced and understood by an intelligent mind. It is in the category of thoughts but it is true.

I reckon: a fact is a true statement.

Fire burns is a fact. Fire is bad! is an opnion.

A moral fact, as morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on another, then is is a true statement about what is and isn't permissible between and among men.

*Slavery is wrong is a fact. Eating meat is wrong is an opinion.

What I mean is that a fact cannot exist without any mind.

There cannot be any reality without a mind in my view.

Sure, the First Mind.

If by first mind you mean God, the creator of everything, then I have to say that there is no God. I have an argument against God. There are only minds and qualia. Minds cannot be created or destroyed.

*why it's wrong is another kettle of fish, which we can dive into if you like

Are you talking about another thread? If yes, which one?