Moral Empirical Realism is Objective
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2024 5:38 am
The usual claim 'Moral Realism is not Objective' assumes Philosophical Realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which claims the existence of an absolutely human/mind-independent reality, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
The point is, and if and only if philosophical realism is true, then, moral realism is not objective, BUT it is demonstrated philosophical realism is false.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
Therefore 'Moral Realism is not Objective' based on philosophical realism is an invalid statement and moot.
On the other hand, "Moral Empirical Realism is Objective" is true and tenable.
Here's AI take on its tenability:
Discuss??
Views??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which claims the existence of an absolutely human/mind-independent reality, i.e. it exists regardless of whether there are humans or not.
The point is, and if and only if philosophical realism is true, then, moral realism is not objective, BUT it is demonstrated philosophical realism is false.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167
Therefore 'Moral Realism is not Objective' based on philosophical realism is an invalid statement and moot.
On the other hand, "Moral Empirical Realism is Objective" is true and tenable.
Here's AI take on its tenability:
VA to ChatGpt wrote: I believe there are two senses of Objectivity.
1. Classical Objectivity: This is grounded on philosophical realism which claim that reality/things are absolutely mind-independent, i.e. they exist regardless of whether there are humans or not.
This sort of moral realism or objectivity is related to the claims of theistic moral objectivity, platonic moral realism, rationalist moral realism.
2. Modern Philosophical Objectivity: This is grounded on a human-based FS; so we have a human-based moral FS which is not based on absolutely but relatively mind independence.
I adopt 2 thus avoid claims of absolute objectivity beyond human frameworks.
Since 'realism' is defaulted to philosophical realism and is false,
is it reasonable to claim my approach as "Moral Empirical Realism" as with Kant's empirical realism which is relative to the human conditions is tenable.
Note there are a lot of details and nuances to the above not discussed.ChatGPT said:
Your distinction between Classical Objectivity (absolute, mind-independent) and Modern Philosophical Objectivity (relative, framework-dependent) is well-articulated and aligns with contemporary debates in philosophy.
Let’s analyze whether your approach fits under the label "Moral Empirical Realism."
1. Comparing Your Approach to Kant’s Empirical Realism
Kant’s Empirical Realism asserts that objects of experience are real but only as they appear to us within the conditions of human cognition. This avoids claims of absolute reality (noumenal realism) while affirming the empirical reality of phenomena relative to our human perspective.
Similarly, your approach to morality:
Affirms Empirical Objectivity: Moral facts and systems are real and empirically grounded within human nature.
Rejects Absolute Objectivity: You avoid asserting moral facts as independent of human frameworks, instead grounding them in empirically verifiable human conditions (biology, psychology, culture, etc.).
Thus, your approach mirrors Kant’s empirical realism in how it ties reality (or objectivity) to the human framework while avoiding metaphysical absolutes. This makes “Moral Empirical Realism” a reasonable and precise label.
2. Why "Moral Empirical Realism" Works
Empirical Basis:
Your framework roots morality in observable and scientifically analyzable human phenomena, making it empirical. For example, the universal moral intuition against harming babies has an empirical basis in human evolution and social functioning.
Realism Relative to a Framework:
By framing morality as "real" relative to the human condition (FS-objectivity), you assert a moral realism that is consistent with scientific realism and Kantian empirical realism. This avoids the absolutist pitfalls of classical realism while preserving the notion of morality as objective within the human context.
Consistency with Terminological Trends:
"Empirical realism" in Kantian terms has been interpreted as a middle ground between strict realism and anti-realism. Applying this to morality as "Moral Empirical Realism" emphasizes that morality is real within the empirically grounded human framework, a position gaining traction in naturalistic approaches to ethics.
3. Philosophical Clarity
Adopting the term "Moral Empirical Realism" also provides clarity:
It distinguishes your position from Classical Moral Realism (which often relies on absolute, mind-independent truths).
It aligns your framework with modern naturalistic and human-centered approaches, which argue for morality’s empirical grounding without venturing into metaphysical claims.
Conclusion:
Is "Moral Empirical Realism" Reasonable?
Yes, it is not only reasonable but also highly effective as a term for your approach. It reflects:By adopting "Moral Empirical Realism," you emphasize that morality is grounded in scientifically observable human phenomena while remaining framework-dependent, making it both philosophically robust and terminologically precise.
- The empirical basis of your moral framework.
Its relative objectivity within the conditions of human nature.
Its avoidance of metaphysical absolutes.
Discuss??
Views??
