For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
How do you define 'moral objectivism'?
The fact is a 'fact' cannot be a personal subjective matter.bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 7:26 pmWhat I am stressing is that there are moral facts that are of course personal, and not universal.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 4:04 amIt does, even if you can relate them to morality, they can only be related to Moral Subjectivism and not Moral Realism.
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.
How come?Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 11:54 pmYou have just denied moral realism.
Indeed. There is no difference between two views.
If what you claim is true then how come slavery was terminated?Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 10:29 pmBut 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.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.
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 that is not moral realism given the definition that there is a moral fact then what it is?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 2:45 amOr 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.
But people are different and statistical preference cannot be used to establish laws.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 2:45 am Perhaps we have statistically significant preferences and we can use our knowledge of these to create laws and guidelines.
Ok, that sounds good.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 2:45 am 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.
I don't agree with Hume. If there is a like then there is an ought.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 2:45 am But that doesn't refute Hume say, on is and ought.
And none of this advocates for slavery or causing other people pain.
It can, given the definition of fact.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:29 amThe fact is a 'fact' cannot be a personal subjective matter.bahman wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 7:26 pmWhat I am stressing is that there are moral facts that are of course personal, and not universal.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 4:04 am
It does, even if you can relate them to morality, they can only be related to Moral Subjectivism and not Moral Realism.
Because moral relativism is true.bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 2:56 pmHow come?
Indeed. There is no difference between two views.
If what you claim is true then how come slavery was terminated?Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 10:29 pmBut 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.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.
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.
Is it based on fact (including like or dislike)?Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 3:39 pmBecause moral relativism is true.bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 2:56 pmHow come?
Indeed. There is no difference between two views.
If what you claim is true then how come slavery was terminated?Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 02, 2022 10:29 pm
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.
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.
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.But people are different and statistical preference cannot be used to establish laws.
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.I don't agree with Hume. If there is a like then there is an ought.
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.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).
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.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.
That is moral objectivism, mind-independent moral facts, which is different from moral realism which states that there are only moral facts.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 4:16 pmmoral realism suggests that morals exist like stones and electric fields, outside of us. That there is an objective good, not mere likes and dislikes.
The rule of thumb prohibits people from interpersonal conflict.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 4:16 pmThe 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.But people are different and statistical preference cannot be used to establish laws.
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.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 4:16 pmI 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.I don't agree with Hume. If there is a like then there is an ought.
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.But for most of human history slavery was morally correct.
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.And is it also true that many people preferred to be slaves because that meant they were secure in the household of their master.