Philosophy Now Forum

It seems like most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles. But why is that ? What is the basis of ethics ?

emptyruins wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:04 am It seems like most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles. But why is that ? What is the basis of ethics ?

When you go on an expedition on the exploration of the wilderness, would you take along a damaged-compass?
It is the same with an expedition to explore the moral wilderness, we need a working moral compass [with near ideal moral principles] as an effective guide to ethical acts. Such a moral compass will allow for deviations but always guide one back to the 'right' path.

Morality & Ethics proper do not involve moral principles that are absolutely real, i.e. absolutely independent of any human interactions, e.g. God given moral commands or Platonic moral universals.

The difficult part is how to establish effective objective moral principles which are verified and justified.

It wouldn't matter if it is. Flat-earthism used to be the most popular view, full stop. But who cares? Does being popular make an assertion true?

The argument against moral/ethical realism and objectivism is overwhelming. And all that means is that there are no ethical or moral facts.

It's tough for the weak-minded. But it's also ethically and morally liberating, because we have to make up our own minds, individually and collectively.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:23 pm It wouldn't matter if it is. Flat-earthism used to be the most popular view, full stop. But who cares? Does being popular make an assertion true?

The argument against moral/ethical realism and objectivism is overwhelming. And all that means is that there are no ethical or moral facts.

It's tough for the weak-minded. But it's also ethically and morally liberating, because we have to make up our own minds, individually and collectively.

"Overwhelming"???
That is because your thinking is too narrow and shallow.

It is very obvious, that moral/ethical realism is popular in general only because it is related to theistic-ethics and that theism is believed by >80% [subject to confirmation] of the World's population.
Theists believed morality/ethics is objective as commanded by a God.
Thus it is popular [in discussions] among philosophers who accept such divine objectivity and those philosophers who oppose to such an objective claim.

But there is another sense of objectivity [& realism] in relation to morality & ethics, i.e. in the sense of scientific objectivity.
If you deny this sense of moral objectivity, then you are denying scientific objectivity and its truths.

emptyruins wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:04 am It seems like most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles.

That's not how it appears to me.

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 5:17 am

emptyruins wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:04 am It seems like most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles.

That's not how it appears to me.

That is how it appears to you. You are just confused about it.

Find me one pholosopher who doesn't believe that murder is wrong.

And then they will drag you into a silly word game of semantics, definitions, distinctions and other such philosophical nonsense. To which you should pay absolutely no attention whatsoever.

Instead simply ask them to commit to their position and offer to murder them. It the wrongness of murder is not objectively true, then what counter argument against their murder could they possibly produce?

I've had zero philosopher volunteer themseves to be murdered as way of demonstrating doxastic commitment in the absence of objective moral principles.

emptyruins wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:04 am It seems like most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles. But why is that ? What is the basis of ethics ?

I don't understand your question.

If you believe that gravity is objectively real and there being objectively true gravitational principles, what does the question "What is the basis of gravity?" mean? What sort of answer do you expect to that?

'Nobody wants to be murdered; therefore murder is morally wrong.'

'If everybody wanted to be murdered, then murder would not be morally wrong.'

Game over. There are moral facts. What people want is morally right, and what people don't want is morally wrong.

Erm.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 5:01 pm 'Nobody wants to be murdered; therefore murder is morally wrong.'

'If everybody wanted to be murdered, then murder would not be morally wrong.'

Game over. There are moral facts. What people want is morally right, and what people don't want is morally wrong.

Erm.

I agree with you! There are no objectively true moral facts so any argument you make objecting to your murder cannot possibly be true.

Lets just get on with murdering you, shall we?

No point wasting our time listening to your falsehoods...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:08 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 5:17 am

emptyruins wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:04 am It seems like most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles.

That's not how it appears to me.

That is how it appears to you. You are just confused about it.

Of course you may assert anything you like but I don't feel confused. I think that "most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles." That's it.

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:04 pm Of course you may assert anything you like but I don't feel confused. I think that "most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles." That's it.

Looks like you changed your mind since the last time you stated your position.

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 5:17 am

emptyruins wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:04 am It seems like most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles.

That's not how it appears to me.

It's difficult to tell that you are confused when you are confused.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:06 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:04 pm Of course you may assert anything you like but I don't feel confused. I think that "most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles." That's it.

Looks like you changed your mind since the last time you stated your position.

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 5:17 am

emptyruins wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:04 am It seems like most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles.

That's not how it appears to me.

It's difficult to tell that you are confused when you are confused.

Well I am not confused. It's just that I can change my understanding of "most philosophers' understanding" depending on context.

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:16 pm Well I am not confused. It's just that I can change my understanding of "most philosophers' understanding" depending on context.

OK, so in the context and totality of your own understanding does it seem to you that most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles?

It's a yes/no question and you've answered both ways so far.

Does that mean your context/understanding changed between the two answers?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:20 pm

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:16 pm Well I am not confused. It's just that I can change my understanding of "most philosophers' understanding" depending on context.

OK, so in the context and totality of your own understanding does it seem to you that most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles?

It's a yes/no question and you've answered both ways so far.

Does that mean your context/understanding changed between the two answers?

I don't believe anything but if you are asking what kind of verbal expressions I choose then that depends on the context. If another individual makes categorical statements I will choose verbal expressions that appear as contradictions. If another individual makes relative statements then I am happy to agree or contradict depending on conditionings.

stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:24 pm I don't believe anything but if you are asking what kind of verbal expressions I choose then that depends on the context. If another individual makes categorical statements I will choose verbal expressions that appear as contradictions. If another individual makes relative statements then I am happy to agree or contradict depending on conditionings.

I don't really care about the verbal expressions that you choose.

I am far more interested in why you choose any particular ones. Be they contradictory or otherwise.