Philosophy Now Forum

I noticed there is a confusion whenever I discussed the topic of Moral Realism or Moral Objectivity.

This is where IWP asked me, how is that you are an antirealist for the physical world while claiming to be moral realist, i.e. moral realism for morality.
In the case of realists for the physical world some [not all] are moral antirealism for morality.
The problem is there is a lack of consideration for the nuances between realism and antirealism.

Here is the resolution;
Meta-ethics is more popular with realists [philosophical].

Philosophical realists who cling to absolute mind-independence of things and reality.
There these p-realists will label those who claim there are moral facts as claiming there are absolute mind-independence moral facts.

It is true there are p-realists who claim there are objective moral facts and they are labelled as moral realists.
For p-realists to be labelled as moral realists is a misnomer.
Rather they should be labelled as moral-philosophical-realists, they are p-realists who claim there are absolutely independent 'objective' moral facts.

The moral relativists who oppose the moral-philosophical-realists should be labelled as ANTI-moral-philosophical-realists, i.e. they oppose philosophical realists who claim moral facts are mind-independent.

Meanwhile those who oppose Philosophical realists [who cling to absolute mind-independence of things and reality] should be labelled ANTI-Philosophical_Realists or Philosophical Idealists.
ANTI-Philosophical_Realists or Philosophical Idealists do not claim Absolute but rather relative mind-independent facts, either physical or moral.
They should not be labelled as Moral Realists which has caused confusion.
Rather they should be labelled Moral ANTI-Philosophical_Realists, i.e. they opposed to philosophical realism in the fields of morality.

Moral ANTI-Philosophical_Realists [or ANTI-Philosophical_Realists(Morality)] recognized there are objective moral facts as qualified to a human-based moral FSK.

BUT Bard [with reservations] explain the above term is too heavy and can be more confusing.

Bard recommended a few options, I chose;

• FSK-dependent Moral Universalism:
  This term emphasizes your belief in universal moral principles rooted in a human-based FSK. It conveys your commitment to objective morality while clarifying its basis in shared human knowledge systems.

These are the options suggested by Bard [with reservations]:

1. Moral Objectivist (Human FSK-based): This term emphasizes your belief in objective moral facts, but clarifies that these facts are grounded in a specific human-based framework and system of knowledge. It's clear and avoids unnecessary negativity.

2. Moral Contextual Realist: This term highlights that your view acknowledges the context and framework (in this case, the human FSK) within which moral facts exist. It's concise and conveys your opposition to absolute, mind-independent realism.

3. Non-Metaphysical Moral Realist: This term distances you from the broader philosophical debate about metaphysical realism and focuses specifically on the existence of objective moral facts within a particular epistemological framework. It may not be easily understandable to a general audience.

4. FSK-Dependent Moral Objectivist: This term explicitly mentions your reliance on the FSK for moral objectivity. It might be a bit cumbersome and jargon-heavy.

5. Moral Pragmatist: This term suggests that your moral beliefs are based on their practical consequences within a specific framework (FSK). While not directly addressing realism, it captures the idea of objective moral facts rooted in a specific context.

1. Moral Non-Realist with Objective Moral Facts:
• This term accurately describes your position as someone who doesn't believe in metaphysical realism (the kind philosophers often discuss) but still believes in objective moral facts.
• It emphasizes your rejection of the absolute, mind-independent type of objectivity while maintaining the core idea of objective moral facts existing outside individual preferences.
2. Contextual Moral Objectivist:
• This term highlights that your objectivity is based on a specific context, namely, a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge (FSK).
• It avoids the baggage of "anti-realism" and clearly conveys that your moral facts are objective within this context.
3. FSK-Based Moral Objectivist:
• This option explicitly references your FSK framework as the foundation for your moral objectivity.
• It's concise and precise, directly addressing the source and limitations of your objectivity.
4. Pragmatic Moral Objectivist:
• This term emphasizes the practical aspect of your position, suggesting that your moral facts are objective insofar as they are useful and effective within your FSK.
• It resonates with the idea of "working" morality, focusing on its practical application rather than its absolute truth.

1. Moral Objectivity with FSK-dependence:
• This term emphasizes your belief in objective moral facts while acknowledging their dependence on human-based frameworks and systems of knowledge (FSKs). It avoids the "realism" label and clarifies the specific nature of your objectivity.
2. Moral Foundationism within FSKs:
• This term highlights the idea of a foundational basis for morality within specific FSKs, such as science or other knowledge frameworks. It emphasizes the grounded nature of your moral beliefs while avoiding the "realism" label.
3. FSK-dependent Moral Universalism:
• This term emphasizes your belief in universal moral principles rooted in FSKs. It conveys your commitment to objective morality while clarifying its basis in shared human knowledge systems.
4. Contextual Objectivism:
• This term emphasizes the objectivity of moral judgments within specific contexts defined by FSKs. It avoids the absolute "realism" label while acknowledging the context-dependent nature of objective moral truths.
5. Moral Non-Realism with Practical Objectivity:
• This term combines your anti-realism for the physical world with your belief in objective moral facts for practical purposes. It clarifies your rejection of metaphysical realism while emphasizing the practical significance of objective morality.

Notes: KIV

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:03 am I chose;

• FSK-dependent Moral Universalism:
  This term emphasizes your belief in universal moral principles rooted in a human-based FSK. It conveys your commitment to objective morality while clarifying its basis in shared human knowledge systems.

That's just relativism.

The title is a kind of concession.
Universal and objective are not synonyms
The whole gap could be simplified if 'objective' was taken out of both of VAs positions (moral objectivism and metaphysical antirealism). Just a single antirealism that questions or denies the existence of mind independent things AND morals.
You can then have an empirical methodology for developing common morals and repeated experiences. Both intersubjective.
But there's an evolutionary default appeal to using the word 'objectivity' or implying the meanings of this term.
So, even though VA has said that objectivity is intersubjectivity, he still wants to say there are objective moral facts.

IOW even though he has said objectivity IS intersubjectivty (with various criteria for rigor), in most thread titles and argument headings he uses the word objectivity.

And while not all gaps would disappear, for example with PH and others, saying things like 'There are inter-subjective morals' would not meet he same resistance.

Nor even the idea that we can strive towards a universal set of intersubjective morals.

My fundamental Principle of FSK;

Whatever exists as real, factual, true, knowledge, and objective is conditioned upon a human based FSR-FSK.

Whatever is human-based implies intersubjectivity, i.e. collective-of-subjects on shared-agreements.
Therefore whatever is objective is FSK-ed and intersubjective.

At present among the philosophical community;
There are Two [very contentious] Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326 i.e.

1. Objectivity - FSK-ed - Intersubjectivity
2. Objectivity - Philosophical Realism - Mind-independent - delusional

The differentiation above is critical, because p-realists [2] insist morality is not objective based on their unrealistic delusion definition of mind-independent 'what is objectivity'.
The difference above differentiate what is expeditious moral progress [1] and hindrances and stagnation of moral progress by 2.

Generally, Objectivity is not a synonym with 'Universal'.
However, specific to a moral-FSK, objectivity by default is universal, i.e. applicable and is a normative to ALL human beings in principle.

The term 'objectivity' with 'universality' is critical for morality within a moral-FSK so that there is possibility of universal continuous improvement in moral progress on a universal basis [fixed goal post] within humanity.
Crudely, when we can determine the universal switch in the brain for moral progress, all we need to switch it to "on" to activate a forward move in moral progress with humanity.

Moral relativity [not objective but subjective] is to each its own, as such there is no universal basis for moral progress.
In the case of moral relativism, there is no one-universal-switch re morality, but there are many switches to turn "on" where "too many cooks" will obviously lead to mixed intents, competition, hindrances and even evil acts that will thwart moral progress within humanity.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 5:30 am Moral relativity [not objective but subjective] is to each its own, as such there is no universal basis for moral progress.
In the case of moral relativism, there is no one-universal-switch re morality, but there are many switches to turn "on" where "too many cooks" will obviously lead to mixed intents, competition, hindrances and even evil acts that will thwart moral progress within humanity.

You pick your FSK from all the different moral FSKs there can be, and then your chosen FSK makes things said between adherents of that FSK "true" for those who adhere with it. That's just relativism.

You severed the link between 'truth' and 'known' by choice in order to do this FSK stuff for the convenience it gives you. But you have to learn to live with the compromise you made.