Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Given there is no absolute 100% certainty.

Here are the arguments from Andrew D. Chapman on "Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True"
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo6OaOzuyLM
  • "In this lecture, I prove that moral realism is almost certainly true.
    After looking at two bad arguments against moral realism's truth and showing why these are bad arguments,
    I look at seven good arguments for moral realism's truth and show why these are good arguments."
Moral or ethical realism is the philosophical position that there are at least some objective moral or ethical facts. Moral or ethical facts are facts about what is right, wrong, good, bad, better, worse, fair, unfair, just, unjust, etc. Another way to say all of this is that Moral or ethical realism is the position that there are at least some objective facts about what matters, period.

In this lecture, I prove that moral realism is almost certainly true. After looking at two bad arguments against moral realism's truth and showing why these are bad arguments, I look at seven good arguments for moral realism's truth and show why these are good arguments.

Does this mean that it is impossible for moral realism to be false? No. What it does mean is that we ought to believe that moral realism is true because the available evidence shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that moral realism is true.
Agree/Disagree?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The two bad argument against Moral Realism are;
  • Bad Argument One:
    1. People have beliefs about morality.
    2. If someone has a belief about X, then X is merely subjective or doesn't exist.
    Therefore,
    2. Morality is merely subjective or doesn't exist.
To find out how the above argument do not hold water, apply it to conventional things, i.e.

1. People have beliefs about dogs.
2. If someone has a belief about X, then X is merely subjective or doesn't exist.
Therefore,
2. Dogs are merely subjective or don't exist.[/list]

The above is not sound.

Bad Argument Two based on moral relativism:
  • 1. We disagree about what matters
    2. If we disagree about something, then there are no fact about that thing.
    Therefore,
    3. There are no facts about what matters, i.e. nothing matters.
To find out how the above argument do not hold water, apply it to conventional things, i.e.
  • 1. We disagree about which interpretation of QM is correct
    2. If we disagree about something, then there are no fact about that thing.
    Therefore,
    3. There are no facts about which interpretation of QM is correct, i.e. no interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct.
The above is not sound because the principles of QM are true and had been very useful to humanity.

Chapman then presented 7 arguments why Moral Realism is almost certainly true [given there is no such things as 100% certainty]
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is one of his good argument for Moral Realism;

In countering the argument from Moral Disagreement.

1. We disagree about what matters
2. Disagreement presupposed something to disagree over
3. Unless we are massively confused, our social practices indicate something about reality.
4. We are not massively confused
Therefore
5. Some things actually do matter.

See the video for the rest of the 6 good arguments.

Note you cannot just rely on what is written above but you have to listen to his explanations.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:14 am 5. Some things actually do matter.
These sort of conclusions are precisely the reason why Philosophy doesn't matter.

There is something there! (What?)
Everything is what it is! (What is it?)
Some things actually do matter! (Which things?)

You are desperate to recover Kantian noumena from the jaws of irrelevance.

Language doesn't work like that.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Peter Holmes »

If what you've quoted indicates the quality of Chapman's argument, there's nothing to see here. Laughable nonsense.

Btw, it's factual assertions that are true or false. Hypotheses, theories and explanations are correct or incorrect, and so on.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:17 am If what you've quoted indicates the quality of Chapman's argument, there's nothing to see here. Laughable nonsense.

Btw, it's factual assertions that are true or false. Hypotheses, theories and explanations are correct or incorrect, and so on.
The first five minutes is given over to explaining what an argument is in terms of premises and conclusions, the rest is about examinig the relationships between those things in very elementary terms. In other words, this video is a lecture from some point in the first week of an intro to phil course at a university. The guy presenting it has followed a brief about that other stuff and the moral realism bit is just the medium for that message about premises.

There's nothing wrong with it if you understand its purpose, the discussion is entirely about weak arguments in every direction, but the conclusion he is arguing towards is that there is some possibility of describing some moral proposition as a fact in some meaningful sense. So he is tacitly introducing his students to a version of this discussion that you wouldn't get with somebody like Vegetable Ambulance, who can't distinguish between his trivial opinions and science for instance.

Evaluated as an actual serious attempt to justify moral realism, it's weak and it's bad, but it can't be otherwise because the audience isn't ready yet for sophisticated arguments.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 10:35 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:17 am If what you've quoted indicates the quality of Chapman's argument, there's nothing to see here. Laughable nonsense.

Btw, it's factual assertions that are true or false. Hypotheses, theories and explanations are correct or incorrect, and so on.
The first five minutes is given over to explaining what an argument is in terms of premises and conclusions, the rest is about examinig the relationships between those things in very elementary terms. In other words, this video is a lecture from some point in the first week of an intro to phil course at a university. The guy presenting it has followed a brief about that other stuff and the moral realism bit is just the medium for that message about premises.

There's nothing wrong with it if you understand its purpose, the discussion is entirely about weak arguments in every direction, but the conclusion he is arguing towards is that there is some possibility of describing some moral proposition as a fact in some meaningful sense. So he is tacitly introducing his students to a version of this discussion that you wouldn't get with somebody like Vegetable Ambulance, who can't distinguish between his trivial opinions and science for instance.

Evaluated as an actual serious attempt to justify moral realism, it's weak and it's bad, but it can't be otherwise because the audience isn't ready yet for sophisticated arguments.
Thanks. I wish VA would apply some elementary critical thinking before posting yet another rubbish argument in yet another futile OP.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Terrapin Station »

The arguments he gives as examples of arguments against moral realism are arguments that I've never seen a single person present. He'd have to show evidence of any moral antirealist presenting either argument.
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:14 am 5. Some things actually do matter.
These sort of conclusions are precisely the reason why Philosophy doesn't matter.

There is something there! (What?)
Everything is what it is! (What is it?)
Some things actually do matter! (Which things?)

You are desperate to recover Kantian noumena from the jaws of irrelevance.

Language doesn't work like that.
I did not insist I agree with the OP totally but the arguments do have some sense of reality.

Note the full context of the argument, i.e.

1. We disagree about what matters
2. Disagreement presupposed something to disagree over

Note when people disagree about what matter,
their disagreement presupposed something to disagree over.
Thus there is a disagreement over something that exists and with the proviso,

3. Unless we are massively confused, our social practices indicate something about reality.
4. We are not massively confused

the people are not among a mass of stupid and irrational people indulging in nonsense.

Therefore
5. Some things actually do matter.
Because we are not talking of nonsense and irrational stuff [e.g. a God, square-circle, ghosts and the likes], therefore, at least something rational and objective exists.

When the above is applied to moral matters, e.g. that no human ought to kill humans,
the above 'oughtness' is something that exists objectively almost certainly.
Therefore moral realism is true.

Moral realism within the OP is there are moral matters that exist as real objectively.

I believe the above argument is not sufficient.
Whatever is claimed as a moral fact to support moral realism must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:17 am If what you've quoted indicates the quality of Chapman's argument, there's nothing to see here. Laughable nonsense.

Btw, it's factual assertions that are true or false. Hypotheses, theories and explanations are correct or incorrect, and so on.
I have posted some of the arguments, did you listen to the whole video before you condemned his views.

I did not insist I agree with the OP totally but the arguments do have some sense of reality. But I believe the above argument is not sufficient.
Whatever is claimed as a moral fact to support moral realism must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 10:35 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:17 am If what you've quoted indicates the quality of Chapman's argument, there's nothing to see here. Laughable nonsense.

Btw, it's factual assertions that are true or false. Hypotheses, theories and explanations are correct or incorrect, and so on.
The first five minutes is given over to explaining what an argument is in terms of premises and conclusions, the rest is about examinig the relationships between those things in very elementary terms. In other words, this video is a lecture from some point in the first week of an intro to phil course at a university. The guy presenting it has followed a brief about that other stuff and the moral realism bit is just the medium for that message about premises.

There's nothing wrong with it if you understand its purpose, the discussion is entirely about weak arguments in every direction, but the conclusion he is arguing towards is that there is some possibility of describing some moral proposition as a fact in some meaningful sense. So he is tacitly introducing his students to a version of this discussion that you wouldn't get with somebody like Vegetable Ambulance, who can't distinguish between his trivial opinions and science for instance.

Evaluated as an actual serious attempt to justify moral realism, it's weak and it's bad, but it can't be otherwise because the audience isn't ready yet for sophisticated arguments.
Note I stated,

I did not insist I agree with the OP totally but the arguments do have some sense of reality. But I believe the above arguments are not very strong nor sufficient.

Whatever is claimed as a moral fact to support moral realism must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:25 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 10:35 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:17 am If what you've quoted indicates the quality of Chapman's argument, there's nothing to see here. Laughable nonsense.

Btw, it's factual assertions that are true or false. Hypotheses, theories and explanations are correct or incorrect, and so on.
The first five minutes is given over to explaining what an argument is in terms of premises and conclusions, the rest is about examinig the relationships between those things in very elementary terms. In other words, this video is a lecture from some point in the first week of an intro to phil course at a university. The guy presenting it has followed a brief about that other stuff and the moral realism bit is just the medium for that message about premises.

There's nothing wrong with it if you understand its purpose, the discussion is entirely about weak arguments in every direction, but the conclusion he is arguing towards is that there is some possibility of describing some moral proposition as a fact in some meaningful sense. So he is tacitly introducing his students to a version of this discussion that you wouldn't get with somebody like Vegetable Ambulance, who can't distinguish between his trivial opinions and science for instance.

Evaluated as an actual serious attempt to justify moral realism, it's weak and it's bad, but it can't be otherwise because the audience isn't ready yet for sophisticated arguments.
Note I stated,

I did not insist I agree with the OP totally but the arguments do have some sense of reality. But I believe the above arguments are not very strong nor sufficient.

Whatever is claimed as a moral fact to support moral realism must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
So what? The video is as I described, obviously it's part of simple intro to phil course. And either that is a class for the very slow, or it's from the start of that course where they still need to be reminded what a premise is compared to a conclusion.

The argument you endorsed in your reply to Skepdick would also prove that God were real if it was valid. So, when you said "not sufficient" you probably wanted to say not sufficient nor necessary.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

double
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12233
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:25 am Note I stated,

I did not insist I agree with the OP totally but the arguments do have some sense of reality. But I believe the above arguments are not very strong nor sufficient.

Whatever is claimed as a moral fact to support moral realism must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
So what? The video is as I described, obviously it's part of simple intro to phil course. And either that is a class for the very slow, or it's from the start of that course where they still need to be reminded what a premise is compared to a conclusion.

The argument you endorsed in your reply to Skepdick would also prove that God were real if it was valid. So, when you said "not sufficient" you probably wanted to say not sufficient nor necessary.
Did you not read the following which I stated many times?

"Whatever is claimed as a moral fact to support moral realism must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK."

The OP's arguments do not insist on the above but merely take for granted the majority and masses are not stupid and irrational. The majority would NOT condone you pissing into a baptismal bowl and others committing the more serious evil acts.

Note my argument,
God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

It is impossible for God to be real even if the argument is valid [no argument for God can be valid anyway - the best suffer from equivocation].
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:20 am 5. Some things actually do matter.
Everything matters. Some things matter more than others.
Post Reply