Moral realism is true

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

It does, even if you can relate them to morality, they can only be related to Moral Subjectivism and not Moral Realism.

[henry quirk]

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

Well, true statements can't be made without a statement-maker (a person, a mind), sure, but the truth or reality the fact references exists independent of mind. Fire burns is the fact, it requires a fact-stater; fire, doin' its thing and burning, is the reality fire burns refers to and fire doin' its thing happens whether or not you or me or anyone is aware of it.

If by first mind you mean God, the creator of everything, then I have to say that there is no God.

Yes, I mean God; that's cool...I don't think God cares if you believe in him.

I have an argument against God.

Good deal.

There are only minds and qualia.

I disagree. There's the world, and all the things and people in it, and the world, and all those things and people exist independent of me and you and each other. That's not to say there are aren't dependencies (the seed, for example, needs soil, sunlight and water to grow and mature) but there are no *ontological dependencies (the rotting log deep in the forest no man [no mind] has ever laid eyes on, exists).

Minds cannot be created or destroyed.

As for minds bein' created or destroyed: I just don't know.

As for qualia: I never could wrap my head around what that is, so I can't comment.



*well, there's one ontological dependency: that of Reality on the Maker of Reality...but, as I reckon it, He built Reality to self-sustain...it does not seem to me He's flittin' around or thru Reality tinkerin' endlessly with the workings.

[Sculptor]

It's all getting a bit silly.
MORAL REALISM, is not the sort of thing that can be either "true" or "false".
It simply does not make sense. It's not even meaningful enough to be wrong.
It's like saying "Chalk" is true or "cheese" is false.
It's just idiotic.

[henry quirk]

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

No, no specific thread. Though, as to my thinkin' on why slavery (and murder, and rape, and robbery) is wrong, this...

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

...is as good an opener as any I've come up wth.

[bahman]

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.

It does, even if you can relate them to morality, they can only be related to Moral Subjectivism and not Moral Realism.

What I am stressing is that there are moral facts that are of course personal, and not universal.

[bahman]

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

Well, true statements can't be made without a statement-maker (a person, a mind), sure, but the truth or reality the fact references exists independent of mind. Fire burns is the fact, it requires a fact-stater; fire, doin' its thing and burning, is the reality fire burns refers to and fire doin' its thing happens whether or not you or me or anyone is aware of it.

I think we understand each other well.

If by first mind you mean God, the creator of everything, then I have to say that there is no God.

Yes, I mean God; that's cool...I don't think God cares if you believe in him.

I have an argument against God.

Good deal.

You are not interested to see my argument?

There are only minds and qualia.

I disagree. There's the world, and all the things and people in it, and the world, and all those things and people exist independent of me and you and each other. That's not to say there are aren't dependencies (the seed, for example, needs soil, sunlight and water to grow and mature) but there are no *ontological dependencies (the rotting log deep in the forest no man [no mind] has ever laid eyes on, exists).

The reality is simple to me, there are minds and subjects of experience so-called qualia. Everything can be explained in terms of minds and qualia.

Minds cannot be created or destroyed.

As for minds bein' created or destroyed: I just don't know.

I have an argument for that too.

As for qualia: I never could wrap my head around what that is, so I can't comment.

It is simple, quale is the subject of experience. Mind can also cause quale such as thought.

*well, there's one ontological dependency: that of Reality on the Maker of Reality...but, as I reckon it, He built Reality to self-sustain...it does not seem to me He's flittin' around or thru Reality tinkerin' endlessly with the workings.

Well, I think the reality works in a self-sustain manner too. There are things that are subject to change such as quale and things that are changeless such as mind.

[bahman]

It's all getting a bit silly.
MORAL REALISM, is not the sort of thing that can be either "true" or "false".
It simply does not make sense. It's not even meaningful enough to be wrong.
It's like saying "Chalk" is true or "cheese" is false.
It's just idiotic.

How about "Moral realism is the correct moral view"?

[bahman]

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

No, no specific thread. Though, as to my thinkin' on why slavery (and murder, and rape, and robbery) is wrong, this...

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

...is as good an opener as any I've come up wth.

You are making good points. Of course, you cannot find anyone who wishes to do something or accept something that is against his/her nature.

[henry quirk]

I think we understand each other well.

You are not interested to see my argument?

Oh, sure: fire away.

Everything can be explained in terms of minds and qualia.

And qualia is, as you say, the subject of experience. So, here's a question: I buy a nice, red apple at the grocery. Does that apple exist only when I'm payin' attention to it, or is it real all the time, whether I pay attention to it or not?

Of course, you cannot find anyone who wishes to do something or accept something that is against his/her nature.

Exactly. It's man's (moral) nature to be free, to be his own, hence slavery, murder, rape, robbery are wrong.

[bahman]

I think we understand each other well.

Cool.

You are not interested to see my argument?

Oh, sure: fire away.

Well, we have to agree that regress is not logically possible and any act requires time since there is a before and after for each act (in the case of creation there was nothing but God before the act of creation and then God creates, therefore, we have God and creation afterward). Accepting these I have to show that the act of creation requires regress. And that is very simple: God is the creator of everything including time. Time however is needed for the act of creation. This means that we need time for the creation of time. This leads to a regress. Regress is not logically possible. Therefore, the act of creation is logically impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

Please note that if God is not the creator of time then time has to be eternal which we again are dealing with a regress.

Everything can be explained in terms of minds and qualia.

And qualia is, as you say, the subject of experience. So, here's a question: I buy a nice, red apple at the grocery. Does that apple exist only when I'm payin' attention to it, or is it real all the time, whether I pay attention to it or not?

Of course, the apple exists unless we live in a simulating world. One cannot argue against the simulating world. But what one cannot deny is that there exists an experiencer so-called mind and there exists a subject of experience so-called quale regardless of whether we are living in a simulating or real world. In the case of the real world, you, Henry that is a conscious mind, don't have direct access to the apple but have access to the quale that is generated by the subconscious mind/minds. So you are living in a kinda simulating world with the difference that the apple is real.

Of course, you cannot find anyone who wishes to do something or accept something that is against his/her nature.

Exactly. It's man's (moral) nature to be free, to be his own, hence slavery, murder, rape, robbery are wrong.

Cool, so we agree again.

[Sculptor]

It's all getting a bit silly.
MORAL REALISM, is not the sort of thing that can be either "true" or "false".
It simply does not make sense. It's not even meaningful enough to be wrong.
It's like saying "Chalk" is true or "cheese" is false.
It's just idiotic.

How about "Moral realism is the correct moral view"?

You'd have to define "moral realism", and "correct".

What you have here is something of a tautology since the whole thrust of moral realism is the notion that one standard of morality called "moral realism" is correct.
The problem comes when you start to state what it is.

And the statement is utterly refuted is moral relativism ever came up with tow incompatible moral statements which it cannot avoid since it is blatantly obvious that morality is relative to historical, cultural and societal differences.

Why not state what it is and give an example??

[promethean75]

"It's like saying "Chalk" is true or "cheese" is false."

Well they got some cheese at food lion that's pure vegetable oil. Not a lick of real cheese in a single slice. Just sayin.

The post-structural nominalist in me denies any cheese essence, but the foodie in me insists that cheese should be made of milk.

[bahman]

It's all getting a bit silly.
MORAL REALISM, is not the sort of thing that can be either "true" or "false".
It simply does not make sense. It's not even meaningful enough to be wrong.
It's like saying "Chalk" is true or "cheese" is false.
It's just idiotic.

How about "Moral realism is the correct moral view"?

You'd have to define "moral realism", and "correct".

Moral realism is a view in which moral facts exist within this view. Correct: free from error.

What you have here is something of a tautology since the whole thrust of moral realism is the notion that one standard of morality called "moral realism" is correct.
The problem comes when you start to state what it is.

And the statement is utterly refuted is moral relativism ever came up with tow incompatible moral statements which it cannot avoid since it is blatantly obvious that morality is relative to historical, cultural and societal differences.

Well, of course, there are historical, cultural, and social differences but that does not mean that what people historically, culturally, and socially accepted were/are morally right.

Why not state what it is and give an example??

You like certain things and dislike others. This is a fact. I am arguing that moral realism facts can be obtained from this fact (like or dislike). For example, people don't like to be slave, therefore, slavery is wrong. As simple as that.

[Sculptor]

And the statement is utterly refuted is moral relativism ever came up with tow incompatible moral statements which it cannot avoid since it is blatantly obvious that morality is relative to historical, cultural and societal differences.

Well, of course, there are historical, cultural, and social differences but that does not mean that what people historically, culturally, and socially accepted were/are morally right.

You have just denied moral realism.

Why not state what it is and give an example??

You like certain things and dislike others. This is a fact.

Here you trivialise the concept of moral realism, because your statment also true of moral relativism.

I am arguing that moral realism facts can be obtained from this fact (like or dislike). For example, people don't like to be slave, therefore, slavery is wrong. As simple as that.

But for most of human history slavery was morally correct. And is it also true that many people preferred to be slaves because that meant they were secure in the household of their master.
For example, slavery was the norm in ancient Rome and many slaves became richer than their masters, because they benefited from the security that their status as slave gave them.

So your example is wrong and your definition is a trivial platitude.

[Iwannaplato]

You like certain things and dislike others. This is a fact. I am arguing that moral realism facts can be obtained from this fact (like or dislike). For example, people don't like to be slave, therefore, slavery is wrong. As simple as that.

Or you could say...
We don't like to be slaves and further it seems we don't like to be slaveowners or that others are slaves. It bothers us. We don't like it. That isn't moral realism, that psychological realism or emotional realism or preference realism. Perhaps we have statistically significant preferences and we can use our knowledge of these to create laws and guidelines.

There's no moral realism in there. But we can have facts about humans. Let's say we find that people in general are disturbed by slavery. That it takes tremendous manipulation (including false claims) to make people accept slavery. So, we could have a fact that in general people don't like slavery and then build from there.

But that doesn't refute Hume say, on is and ought.

And none of this advocates for slavery or causing other people pain.