Moral realism is true

[Age]

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.

How do you define 'moral objectivism'?

See, what you are 'trying to' argue against might not even exist to begin with anyway.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

The fact is a 'fact' cannot be a personal subjective matter.

[Iwannaplato]

How do you define 'moral objectivism'?

See, what you are 'trying to' argue against might not even exist to begin with anyway.

I believe, in this case, 'arguing against', means arguing against the existence of objective morals or moral facts. As opposed to arguing against abortion, say.

[bahman]

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.

How come?

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.

Indeed. There is no difference between two views.

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.

If what you claim is true then how come slavery was terminated?

[bahman]

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.

If that is not moral realism given the definition that there is a moral fact then what it is?

Perhaps we have statistically significant preferences and we can use our knowledge of these to create laws and guidelines.

But people are different and statistical preference cannot be used to establish laws.

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.

Ok, that sounds good.

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

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

I don't agree with Hume. If there is a like then there is an ought.

[bahman]

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

I am arguing against moral objectivism.

How do you define 'moral objectivism'?

See, what you are 'trying to' argue against might not even exist to begin with anyway.

Moral objectivism is a moral view that moral facts are mind-independent.

[bahman]

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.

The fact is a 'fact' cannot be a personal subjective matter.

It can, given the definition of fact.

[Sculptor]

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.

How come?

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.

Indeed. There is no difference between two views.

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.

If what you claim is true then how come slavery was terminated?

Because moral relativism is true.

[bahman]

You have just denied moral realism.

How come?

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

Indeed. There is no difference between two views.

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.

If what you claim is true then how come slavery was terminated?

Because moral relativism is true.

Is it based on fact (including like or dislike)?

[Sculptor]

How come?


Indeed. There is no difference between two views.


If what you claim is true then how come slavery was terminated?

Because moral relativism is true.

Is it based on fact (including like or dislike)?

It is a fact that slavery was held to be morally sound, whilst now it is held to be morally dubious. Where is the realism here.
You tell me?

[Iwannaplato]

If that is not moral realism given the definition that there is a moral fact then what it is?

moral realism suggests that morals exist like stones and electric fields, outside of us. That there is an objective good, not mere likes and dislikes.

But people are different and statistical preference cannot be used to establish laws.

The psychopaths and narcissists will then stop any consensus. Because they don't care at all about other people. Their preferences are not like most people's.

I don't agree with Hume. If there is a like then there is an ought.

I know you don't agree, but why aren't you satisfied with there being a like. Why fancy it up, say or imply it is objective. That likes exist is objective, they are not moral facts, they are likes.

[henry quirk]

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).

If time is simply a measure of change (not an entity or dimension) then you can, so to speak, have your cake and eat it too.

Consider: God is the Prime Mover, He (or It, if you prefer) moves but is unmoved. He's like a single, stable particle in the Void. He doesn't change in any conventional sense so there was nuthin' to measure, nuthin' to apply time to. He Creates. Now there is a dynamic other with all kinds of change goin' on, measurable change. After a while, free-willed, reasoning matter formalizes this measure as time.

What I'm sayin' is, no, time wash't needed for the act of Creation; Creation brought the change and dynamism we measure and call time.

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.

I disagree. As I say elsewhere: The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of, or intervention of, [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person, as he's in the world, is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.

[bahman]

Because moral relativism is true.

Is it based on fact (including like or dislike)?

It is a fact that slavery was held to be morally sound, whilst now it is held to be morally dubious. Where is the realism here.
You tell me?

People simply don't like to be slaves. Do you?

[bahman]

If that is not moral realism given the definition that there is a moral fact then what it is?

moral realism suggests that morals exist like stones and electric fields, outside of us. That there is an objective good, not mere likes and dislikes.

That is moral objectivism, mind-independent moral facts, which is different from moral realism which states that there are only moral facts.

But people are different and statistical preference cannot be used to establish laws.

The psychopaths and narcissists will then stop any consensus. Because they don't care at all about other people. Their preferences are not like most people's.

The rule of thumb prohibits people from interpersonal conflict.

I don't agree with Hume. If there is a like then there is an ought.

I know you don't agree, but why aren't you satisfied with there being a like. Why fancy it up, say or imply it is objective. That likes exist is objective, they are not moral facts, they are likes.

What I am saying is a like is a fact that we can establish a moral fact from it. I am not talking about objectivism. Of course, a like just allows things on a personal level so we respect the rule of thumb.

[henry quirk]

But for most of human history slavery was morally correct.

No. It was accepted practice (still is in some parts) but it was not then, nor is it now, morally correct. Even the slaver knows it's wrong.

And is it also true that many people preferred to be slaves because that meant they were secure in the household of their master.

No. Becuz a person is grateful their situation is not worse is not to say they're happy with their situation. The house slave was resigned to his place, was grateful to be alive and in relative comfort, but he never accepted his lot, never thought to himself, yes, I'm meant to be property, meant to be owned. And given the opportunity: every slave runs like a bat outta hell away from the leash, includin' the rich house slave.