I have used the term “absolutely mind-independent” to differentiate from “relative mind-independent” in the context of morality.
According to PH, what is objective must be based on facts.
All moral elements are merely individuals’ opinions, beliefs, and judgments which can only be subjective, thus morality cannot be objective; subjective moral elements are not facts.
For PH, ‘what is a fact’ is a feature of reality, that is just-is, being-so, states of affairs, that is the case, i.e. exists independent of human beings, i.e. the exists before humans and will do so after humans are extinct.
PH’s what is fact is based on the fundamental of Philosophical Realism where reality, things and whatever is fact exist independent of the mind and human conditions [mental beliefs, opinions and judgments].
- Philosophical Realism .. is the view that a certain kind of thing 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. This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of [human] knowledge, [perception], thought, or understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
I have argued, the philosophical realists ‘what is fact’ is grounded an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577
As such, PH’s basis of ‘what is fact’ has no credibility to refute ‘morality is factual & objective’.
Since this sense of external_ness is universal to all humans, Empirical Realists [anti-philosophical_realists] inevitably also adopt the sense of mind-independence.
However, empirical realists do not adopt this mind-independence in a ideological sense, but rather merely in the pragmatic sense.
The empirical realists’ mind-independence is subsumed within Transcendental Idealism thus is relative.
To differentiate the ‘mind-independence’ concepts between that of the philosophical realists’ and that of the empirical realists’ I classified them as
1. Philosophical Realists: absolute mind-independent
2. Empirical Realists: relative mind-independent
Philosophical realists claim things exist totally independent of the human conditions [mind, brain and body], i.e. they exist totally mind-independent by-themselves or in-themselves. Kant classified the philosophical realist things are things-in-themselves.
Because the philosophical realists things exist mind-independently with total separation from humans, I have classified them as existing in an absolute mind independent sense
in order to differentiate this absolute mind-independent existence from that of the empirical realists which is relative.
I believe to contrast and differentiate between absolute mind-independence and relative mind-independence is very relevant in the above context.
Views? Agree? Disagree -if so, why?