Philosophy Now Forum

The counter against Morality is Objective is generally grounded on Philosophical Realism, i.e. reality exists absolutely mind/human independent regardless of whether there are human or not. There cannot be any absolutely mind/human independent objective moral elements, therefore morality cannot be objective.

Philosophical realism –.. is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I have proven:
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167

Can anyone prove philosophical realism is really real taken into account the alternatives that philosophical antirealism [Kantianism] which argued for what is really real in opposition to philosophical realism claim of 'absolutely mind/human independence'.

Use AI if need to but ask AI to consider the alternative, e.g. Kantian Empirical Realism.

Discuss??
View??

eta: "Morality" instead of moral.

Notes

Notes:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 6:02 am The counter against Moral is Objective....

I understand that English is not your first language, but you repeatedly make errors in English like this one that are very convenient.
'morality' could work there as a noun, but moral without an article would generally be an adjective. You could also use 'morals are objective' but now we start noticing that morals is plural which might lead people to what is actually - contrary to what you say - the most common argument against objectivist morality - the diversity of morals and moral FSERCs and the problem with your intersubjectivity is objectivity argument, given that this would mean that objective morals change over time. In Kant's time Abrahamic values dominated by a wide margin, including views that would not be intersubjectively dominant now. This would mean that certain morals that were objectively correct then are no longer objectively correct. Which is, ironically, a rather anti-Kantian idea.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 6:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 6:02 am The counter against Moral is Objective....

I understand that English is not your first language, but you repeatedly make errors in English like this one that are very convenient.
'morality' could work there as a noun, but moral without an article would generally be an adjective. You could also use 'morals are objective' but now we start noticing that morals is plural which might lead people to what is actually - contrary to what you say - the most common argument against objectivist morality - the diversity of morals and moral FSERCs and the problem with your intersubjectivity is objectivity argument, given that this would mean that objective morals change over time. In Kant's time Abrahamic values dominated by a wide margin, including views that would not be intersubjectively dominant now. This would mean that certain morals that were objectively correct then are no longer objectively correct. Which is, ironically, a rather anti-Kantian idea.

Nah, it was a spelling mistake, it should have been "Morality" where I have repeating the same all over.

Whatever is objective is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system. [FSERC]
The theistic moral framework is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system, so it objective and remain objective as long as it exist as such.
But there is a continuum of degrees of objectivity from 0.1 to 100/100 relatively.
The theistic moral FS is still objective but relatively it is 5/100 relative to the the scientific FS which is gold standard indexed at 100/100.

My FSERC based moral system will be established as objective as possible to the gold standard, say 80/100 because the 99% of its input is from the scientific FS.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 7:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 5:08 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 12:50 pm Your revised conclusion does nothing to sort out the problem. You are still merely repeating the claim that
reality is 'contingent upon the human conditions' - which is false. For the record, here's your claim:

Premise: Reality emerged and is realized [contingent upon human conditions] prior to being perceived, known and described in human ways. (Note: these are your exact words above.)

Conclusion: Therefore, reality is not absolutely independent from humans [as claimed by philosophical realists] but only relatively independent from humans/somehow entangled with the human conditions [as per philosophical antiRealists -Kantian]. (Note: these are your exact words above.)

Your claim that reality 'emerged' and 'is realised' prior to its being perceived, known and described by humans is, to repeat, banal. Of course it did. The universe existed long before humans appeared. And that existence obviously had nothing to do with humans. So your claim that its emergence and realisation was/is 'contingent upon the human conditions' is false.

PH: You are still merely repeating the claim that
reality is 'contingent upon the human conditions' - which is false.

Your claim that reality 'emerged' and 'is realised' prior to its being perceived, known and described by humans is, to repeat, banal. Of course it did. The universe existed long before humans appeared. And that existence obviously had nothing to do with humans.

Can you prove your claim is really true?

I'm happy to accept the evidence from natural science - the 'gold standard'.

Natural Science or just Science i.e. the Science FS or FSERC is the Gold Standard of reality and objectivity.
The science FS is contingent to a human-based [collective of subjects].
Whatever the scientific reality, truth, knowledge or fact, it is established by a consensus of peers within the specific scientific field.

However, there are two contentious views to the science FS, i.e.
1. Scientific Realism
2. Scientific AntiRealism i.e. scientific empirical realism

Scientific realism is a subset of philosophical realism; it believe in the noumenal thing, i.e. it exists beyond the scientific FS regardless of whether there are humans or not.
However, being Science [fallible and human-based] merely ASSUME the noumenal thing exists beyond the scientific reach awaiting discovery.
That the noumenal is ASSUMED, means that it is not taken a really real but merely a guide and direction for science to work with.
So there is also the Correspondence Theory of Truth and its associated problem in this case, regardless of any denial by you.

If you reified the noumenal as really real, you are chasing an illusion because there is nothing real there but merely an assumption.

On the other hand, scientific empirical realism accept what science confirm as real is really-real [credibly the most real, the gold standard] but it is qualified to the conditions of the scientific FS.
There is no need at all to speculate there is something real beyond [transcendental] what science confirmed as scientifically real.

As I had demonstrated, whatever is reality must first emerged [FSER], is realized as real, then perceived and known via the scientific FS [or other FS] and is described via the linguistic FS.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

So whilst resorting to Gold Standard, i.e. natural science or just science - the science FSERC, you have not "proven" your philosophical realism to be really true as absolutely independent of humans/mind, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.