Moral Relativists Should Tolerate Moral Realism

[Angelo Cannata]

I am not insisting my view is absolutely perfect but rather it is the most realistic based on available evidences.

Why should we be realistic and based on available evidences? Obviously, being not realistic and not based on evidence puts in danger our existence, so let's go on: why should we exist? Should we consider our instinct to exist an absolute moral principle? Obviously, such principle carries also specific ways how to exist, that are culturally conditioned. So if we decide to consider our existence an absolute principle, then we are automatically making our culture and opinions an absolute principle, which makes us dictators.
So, why should we be realistic?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am not insisting my view is absolutely perfect but rather it is the most realistic based on available evidences.

Why should we be realistic and based on available evidences? Obviously, being not realistic and not based on evidence puts in danger our existence, so let's go on: why should we exist? Should we consider our instinct to exist an absolute moral principle? Obviously, such principle carries also specific ways how to exist, that are culturally conditioned. So if we decide to consider our existence an absolute principle, then we are automatically making our culture and opinions an absolute principle, which makes us dictators.
So, why should we be realistic?

The human existence should be focused on the realistic rather than the unrealistic.
What is real [among others] is conditioned upon an embodied human based framework and system of emergence, realization of reality and knowledge. [FSRC]

I am not stating we must ignored the unrealistic because there some illusions that are useful but we should know their limitations and not reify nor hypostatize them as really real.

If breathing is universal to all humans, does that make it dictators as far as the need to breathe is concern?
It is the same with other moral oughts that are universal which must be applied optimally and not at the expense of some others and humanity.

[Angelo Cannata]

If breathing is universal to all humans, does that make it dictators as far as the need to breathe is concern?

I think so, because, when we think of breathing, we cannot do it without being conditioned by our culture. This way, claiming our fundamental right to breathe becomes just an excuse to hide our will to impose our culture. Even when I claim the right of everybody to breathe, I do it from inside my culture, so even defending your right to breathe is a way to hide my will to impose my culture, hidden behind my generosity in taking care of your breathing.

It is the same with other moral oughts that are universal which must be applied optimally and not at the expense of some others and humanity.

The problem is about "optimally": it carries as well our culture, our frameworks, so it is just another hidden way to try to impose our frameworks.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If breathing is universal to all humans, does that make it dictators as far as the need to breathe is concern?

I think so, because, when we think of breathing, we cannot do it without being conditioned by our culture. This way, claiming our fundamental right to breathe becomes just an excuse to hide our will to impose our culture. Even when I claim the right of everybody to breathe, I do it from inside my culture, so even defending your right to breathe is a way to hide my will to impose my culture, hidden behind my generosity in taking care of your breathing.

The above is odd.
Point is breathing is so universal as human nature which no one would deny it is objective to all humans.
If anyone who claimed they only have the right to breathe, that would be very perverted where the majority would get rid of.

It is the same with other moral oughts that are universal which must be applied optimally and not at the expense of some others and humanity.

The problem is about "optimally": it carries as well our culture, our frameworks, so it is just another hidden way to try to impose our frameworks.

Optimality in this case is to optimize the well-being of everyone within known constraints.

[Angelo Cannata]

... no one would deny it is objective to all humans.

The fact that no one denies something doesn't mean so much. If no one denies that the planet earth is flat, this doesn't make the planet earth flat.

I think the essential point is when you talk about frameworked objectivity. It means that you admit that what you say is frameworked, so what do you answer to the objection that whatever you say can be accused of being an attempt to impose your own frameworks, despite your sincere good intention?

[Veritas Aequitas]

... no one would deny it is objective to all humans.

The fact that no one denies something doesn't mean so much. If no one denies that the planet earth is flat, this doesn't make the planet earth flat.

I think the essential point is when you talk about frameworked objectivity. It means that you admit that what you say is frameworked, so what do you answer to the objection that whatever you say can be accused of being an attempt to impose your own frameworks, despite your sincere good intention?

I understand the ad populum fallacy.
Whatever is claimed as real and objectivity must be contrasted against the gold standard, i.e. the scientific framework.

I don't impose my own framework but had argued the most credible and objective FSRC is that of the scientific FSRC as the gold standard [follow by the mathematics] based on rational criteria then all others.
If any framework is to be credible and objective it has to be as near as possible to the gold standard.

[Sculptor]

Moral Relativists are the same as Moral Realists.

Note as defined in meta-ethics

Moral Objectivists are just deluded, fascistic, authoritarians.

I linked somewhere to you but you ignored or cannot comprehend your own ignorance:
viewtopic.php?p=702192#p702192

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Your sense of objectivity is illusory just like theists' objectivity.
This is where theists insist their morality is objective i.e. from God.
You insist your objectivity is based on absolute mind-independent facts and since moral elements are subjective, they cannot be objective.
So, they are no objective moral facts.
So, you are grounding in an illusory to refute moral objectivism.
You are the one who is deluded and being delusional in grounding your claim based on an illusion.

What is moral objectivism proper is grounded upon an embodied human based FSRC, just like scientific facts are objective grounded on the human-based FSRC.
You deny scientific facts are objective?
Since it is directly human-based, it cannot be illusory.
So moral objectivism is realistic and can be relied upon to promote moral progress.

You have the right to argue for a moral code from your opinions, but to call that objective or absolute is simply megalomania.
It is not realistic, it is a dictatorship.
You are a fascist.

[Skepdick]

1 The main claim of descriptive moral relativism is obviously true.

No it isn't. On descriptive moral objectivism moral relativism is false and effectively amounts to lying.

2 To reject moral objectivism - the claim that there are moral facts - is not to accept meta-ethical or normative moral relativism or moral nihilism. This supposed choice or dichotomy amounts to two sides of the same counterfeit coin.

You don't have to accept; or reject anything - I am talking about you; not to you.

It is a moral fact that lying (intentional misrepresentation of the facts) is immoral. You are intentionally misrepresenting the fact that morality is objective, thus the claim that you are lying is descriptive.

[Angelo Cannata]

... the scientific FSRC as the gold standard...

I don't think that morality can find any ground on science, because science doesn't say anything about what is good and what is bad.
Obviously, a morality that takes science into consideration is stronger than a morality that doesn't. I said "stronger", which doesn't mean "better", otherwise this would be already a moral judgement.
How to interpret the data given by science is subjective. If science tells us that an animal suffers if gets injuries, this doesn't mean that making animals suffer is scientifically, and as a consequence morally, bad.
So, I think that ultimately morality is subjective. Saying that considering science makes morality frameworkedly objective creates just ambiguity and confusion.

[Skepdick]

So, I think that ultimately morality is subjective. Saying that considering science makes morality frameworkedly objective creates just ambiguity and confusion.

Lets do a thought experiment shall we? In so far as you are doing the exact same sort of mental activity (categorising; putting things in the correct category: right-wrong, subjective-objective) which categorization-schema are you more committed to? Asked differently: which categorisation is less likely to be a category error?

Are you more confident in the assertion that morality is subjective (as opposed to objective); or are you more confident in the assertion that murder is immoral (as opposed to moral)?

Asking the exact same question in different language: Which one is more likely to be a category error? The objectivity of morality; or the wrongness of murder?

[Veritas Aequitas]

... the scientific FSRC as the gold standard...

I don't think that morality can find any ground on science, because science doesn't say anything about what is good and what is bad.
Obviously, a morality that takes science into consideration is stronger than a morality that doesn't. I said "stronger", which doesn't mean "better", otherwise this would be already a moral judgement.
How to interpret the data given by science is subjective. If science tells us that an animal suffers if gets injuries, this doesn't mean that making animals suffer is scientifically, and as a consequence morally, bad.
So, I think that ultimately morality is subjective. Saying that considering science makes morality frameworkedly objective creates just ambiguity and confusion.

Here is how science and morality can merge,

Say the scientific FSRC as the gold standard... indexed at 100/100 objectivity.
We need to establish a moral FSRC that has >90% of its input from the scientific FSRC.
In this case the moral FSRC can be rated at say 80/100.

Take the case of empathy which is one very critical element of morality.
The emergence of empathy is supported by mirror neurons in part.
The link between empathy [moral] can be linked to mirror neurons [science-neuroscience].
This cause and effect can be tested scientifically [not thorough at present but there is potential to discover the greater linkage].

It is not only empathy, but there are loads of moral elements that can be supported scientifically [great potential in the future].

As such, in the future, whatever [90%] is morality must be supported by scientific evidence.

Since the moral FSRC is fundamentally objective, morality is objective and it will have a high degree of credibility and objectivity where majority of its input are scientific facts from the scientific FSRC.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral Relativists are the same as Moral Realists.

Note as defined in meta-ethics

Moral Objectivists are just deluded, fascistic, authoritarians.

I linked somewhere to you but you ignored or cannot comprehend your own ignorance:
viewtopic.php?p=702192#p702192

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Your sense of objectivity is illusory just like theists' objectivity.
This is where theists insist their morality is objective i.e. from God.
You insist your objectivity is based on absolute mind-independent facts and since moral elements are subjective, they cannot be objective.
So, they are no objective moral facts.
So, you are grounding in an illusory to refute moral objectivism.
You are the one who is deluded and being delusional in grounding your claim based on an illusion.

What is moral objectivism proper is grounded upon an embodied human based FSRC, just like scientific facts are objective grounded on the human-based FSRC.
You deny scientific facts are objective?
Since it is directly human-based, it cannot be illusory.
So moral objectivism is realistic and can be relied upon to promote moral progress.

You have the right to argue for a moral code from your opinions, but to call that objective or absolute is simply megalomania.
It is not realistic, it is a dictatorship.
You are a fascist.

You did not read the link I provided, just read the OP not the whole thread.

First I define what is objectivity in relation to the FSRC sense.
Whatever is FSRC-ed is objective, i.e. independent of individual[s] beliefs.
Morality is conditioned upon a Moral FSRC.
Therefore, morality is objective [in the above sense].

What is wrong with the above argument.
You will be insulting your intelligence if you insist the above is wrong.
You need to understand [not agree with] the details of the premises before you critique it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Say the scientific FSRC as the gold standard... indexed at 100/100 objectivity.
We need to establish a moral FSRC that has >90% of its input from the scientific FSRC.
In this case the moral FSRC can be rated at say 80/100.

And those numbers are pulled out of which orifice?

[Angelo Cannata]

Take the case of empathy which is one very critical element of morality.

I don't think that empathy has anything to do with morality. The critical element of morality is judgement about what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. This is applied to actions, happenings, events. Once you do something that is judged morally good, it doesn't matter if you did it with or without empathy. Even if science finds neurons of empathy, actually empathy can be radically criticised as a fundamental source of hypocrisy, because it causes selective choices that are deeply unjust. In the world of empathy those who are more successful in causing feelings of empathy get more help and resources, compared to those who are less clever in the art of raising empathy.

The essence of the question, as I said, is that nothing is scientifically good or bad, moral or immoral. On the contrary, science can destroy any concept of morality because it can reveal how morality is actually one of the many clever mechanisms of competition among living beings. Since competition is connected with self imposition, you are liable to be accused of trying to impose your culture, your framework, yourself, the moment you try to exploit science to find a ground to what is completely subjective, completely belonging to your personal subjective ideas.

It has already happened in history that, whenever science has been used to justify moral choices, it has been used to oppress people: we can think, for example, of the ancient idea that women have not soul, the idea of human races, some of them inferior to other ones. I can't recall any historical fact where science has been able to support morality. It can be used to deny the supposed scientific foundations of racist theories, but, once you have demolished them, you cannot go on doing the opposite, which is, using science to found a morality, otherwise you are going back again to make exactly the same mistake made by racists.

Even, for example, when science says that human races do not exist, or that there is no scientific ground to establish who has a soul and who doesn't, just because the idea of soul itself has nothing to do with science, this cannot and shouldn't be used positively to build a morality.

Science is able to destroy, to deny wrong theories, but it is completely unable to give the fundamental motivational ground for anything humanly positive. The fundamentals of science is Maths. The moment you try to say that 2+2=4 is morally good, you are trying to build your dictatorship.
You cannot even say that 2+2=4 is good and 2+2=5 is bad. Mathematically they are just true or false, but being true or false has nothing to do with being mathematically good or bad. It is us humans who establish that a non working machine based on 2+2=5 is not good. Scientifically it is just a non working machine, that scientifically has nothing worse than a working one.

[Sculptor]

Note as defined in meta-ethics


I linked somewhere to you but you ignored or cannot comprehend your own ignorance:
viewtopic.php?p=702192#p702192

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Your sense of objectivity is illusory just like theists' objectivity.
This is where theists insist their morality is objective i.e. from God.
You insist your objectivity is based on absolute mind-independent facts and since moral elements are subjective, they cannot be objective.
So, they are no objective moral facts.
So, you are grounding in an illusory to refute moral objectivism.
You are the one who is deluded and being delusional in grounding your claim based on an illusion.

What is moral objectivism proper is grounded upon an embodied human based FSRC, just like scientific facts are objective grounded on the human-based FSRC.
You deny scientific facts are objective?
Since it is directly human-based, it cannot be illusory.
So moral objectivism is realistic and can be relied upon to promote moral progress.

You have the right to argue for a moral code from your opinions, but to call that objective or absolute is simply megalomania.
It is not realistic, it is a dictatorship.
You are a fascist.

You did not read the link I provided, just read the OP not the whole thread.

First I define what is objectivity in relation to the FSRC sense.
Whatever is FSRC-ed is objective, i.e. independent of individual[s] beliefs.
Morality is conditioned upon a Moral FSRC.
Therefore, morality is objective [in the above sense].

What is wrong with the above argument.
You will be insulting your intelligence if you insist the above is wrong.
You need to understand [not agree with] the details of the premises before you critique it.

You are still wrong