Moral Realism in Perspective

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am fundamentally an antirealist, i.e. philosophical antirealist against the ideology of philosophical realism.
So when I argued for moral realism, it is seem contradictory.
There are nuances to the realism vs antirealism dichotomy to the extent an antirealist can be a realist depending on the perspective or context involved.

Most members here are ignorant of such nuances and perspectives.

Here are the various perspectives to Moral Realism within topics of morality;

• 1. Moral Realism within Philosophical or Metaphysical Realism. -Non-FSERC
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  where reality or things are absolutely independent of the human mind and conditions.
  1a. Moral Realism - Philosophical Realism - scientific realism
  Supporters: Boyd, Landau, McCord, Railton, Brink, Sturgeon, ...
  1b. Moral Realism - Philosophical Realism - theism.
  
  
  2. Moral Realism within Empirical Realism -FSERC
  here realism is confined to what is empirically and rationally possible.
  Moral Realism - Empirical Realism - scientific antirealism
  Because it is empirical, reality and things in this case are not absolutely but only relatively independent of the human mind and conditions.
  For example, the external world is independent and out there, but it is ultimately subsumed within the human conditions [as in transcendental idealism].
  
  3. Quasi-realism
  Quasi-realism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:
  Ethical sentences do not express propositions.
  Instead, ethical sentences project emotional attitudes as though they were real properties. -WIKI
  
  4. Moral Relativism
  Moral relativism is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences [disagreements] in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures.
  
  5. Moral Skepticism
  Moral skepticism is a class of meta-ethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge.
  note Amoralist Skepticism below.
  
  6. Moral Nihilism
  Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or morally wrong and that morality does not exist. -WIKI

So, when I claim for Moral Realism, it is with reference with Empirical Realism where reality is relatively independent from the human mind NOT the absolute independence of the philosophical realist.

In terms of objective morality:
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. Phil-realists' Objectivity is based on mind-independent objects
2. Empirical Realists' Objectivity is grounded on a collective-of-subjects within a FSERC.


Take note of the above in your support or refutation of moral realism.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

Amoralist Skepticism
Much moral skepticism is skepticism about the objectivity of morality, that is, skepticism about the existence of moral facts or the possibility of moral knowledge.

But another traditional kind of skepticism accepts the existence of moral facts and concedes that we have moral knowledge, and asks why we should care about these facts.
Call this amoralist skepticism.
Amoralists are the traditional way of representing this second kind of skepticism; the amoralist is someone who recognizes the existence of moral considerations and remains unmoved.

The internalist relies on the possibility of inverted-commas usage of moral language, and replies that people can be unmoved by considerations that are only conventionally regarded as moral, but insists that a genuine amoralist is inconceivable.

However Note
Thus, according to the internalist, apparent amoralists such as Plato's Thrasymachus, Hobbes's Fool,7 and Mike, the conman in David Mamet's film House of Games, remain unmoved not by what they regard as moral considerations but only by what others regard as moral considerations; their own views about morality are really completely different from conventional views.

The hybrid internalist, by contrast, could concede the conceivability of this kind of amoralist but would have to insist that the amoralist is necessarily mistaken in thinking that morality does require the action to which she sincerely professes indifference.
(Although it is not clear how a form of hybrid internalism that insisted on moral mistakes could be a premise in an antirealist argument.)
The problem for internalism is that it does not take the amoralist's challenge seriously enough.
Amoralist skepticism [indifferent to moral facts] is a familiar philosophical and popular form of skepticism.


Brink 46-47

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

Survey: 56% of Philosophers Accept Moral Realism -2019
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30893

62% Philosophers Surveyed Accept Moral Realism -2020
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34275

The above are based on a survey of philosophers not just random Tom, Dick or Harry.

Nevertheless, I take the above as just mere strong indications of the reality of moral realism and not something conclusively.
This indicate the morality is not something that is related to some flimsy feelings but something that is serious to humanity.

As I had pointed out elsewhere, those who reject moral realism, i.e. objective moral facts has a moral cognitive deficit just like psychopaths who has a deficit in empathy and the inability to tune into the emotions of others.

[FlashDangerpants]

As I had pointed out elsewhere, those who reject moral realism, i.e. objective moral facts has a moral cognitive deficit just like psychopaths who has a deficit in empathy and the inability to tune into the emotions of others.

I know that you have some sort of hopes of being published properly one day, but nobody could ever get their work published in an academic philosophy journal of any sort if it contains a scandalous claim like that one, and that is why you can know that you failed to read that paper correctly.

The whole 'cognitive deficit' claim that you make is based entirely on your own autistism, and merely reflects the difficulty it causes when you try to understand the internal lives of other people in general. You should discuss this matter with a doctor, not an internet forum.