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

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 9:26 am
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].
Either the link between the premises and conclusion in the deductive argument you endorsed lacks something, in which case the argument is faulty in some respect of logic you didn't notice, or it is tight and can be used to prove your argument about God is wrong.

Your spluttering about other stuff doesn't rescue you from this simple dichotomy. If that argument is taken to prove morality is factual, then it can be taken in the same way to prove religion is factual.... Or you could notice that you have endorsed a bad argument and just let it go. But then this thread is sort of done.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:41 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:20 am 5. Some things actually do matter.
Everything matters. Some things matter more than others.
Note these relevant conditions to the argument;

P3. Unless we are massively confused, our social practices indicate something about reality.
P4. We are not massively confused
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
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 9:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:26 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:16 am

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].
Either the link between the premises and conclusion in the deductive argument you endorsed lacks something, in which case the argument is faulty in some respect of logic you didn't notice, or it is tight and can be used to prove your argument about God is wrong.

Your spluttering about other stuff doesn't rescue you from this simple dichotomy. If that argument is taken to prove morality is factual, then it can be taken in the same way to prove religion is factual.... Or you could notice that you have endorsed a bad argument and just let it go. But then this thread is sort of done.
The OP is Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True.
The author mentioned God somewhere in the video.
Regardless,
the main theme of the argument is
'something matter,'
thus moral thing matter, so moral realism is almost certainly true.

To reinforce the above, I resort to;
"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 10:04 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:26 am
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].
Either the link between the premises and conclusion in the deductive argument you endorsed lacks something, in which case the argument is faulty in some respect of logic you didn't notice, or it is tight and can be used to prove your argument about God is wrong.

Your spluttering about other stuff doesn't rescue you from this simple dichotomy. If that argument is taken to prove morality is factual, then it can be taken in the same way to prove religion is factual.... Or you could notice that you have endorsed a bad argument and just let it go. But then this thread is sort of done.
The OP is Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True.
The author mentioned God somewhere in the video.
Regardless,
the main theme of the argument is
'something matter,'
thus moral thing matter, so moral realism is almost certainly true.

To reinforce the above, I resort to;
"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 you just don't care about deductively valid inferences if you like the conclusion?
An argument must be strong if it argues to a conclusion you like and weak if it argues to a conclusion you don't like, even if that's the same argument with a variable swapped.

Is that the quality of philosopher you think you should be in order to attain the lofty goals you assume? You reckon that's gonna work out for you when you are published and arguing your case agaist professionals huh?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
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 10:12 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:04 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:42 am
Either the link between the premises and conclusion in the deductive argument you endorsed lacks something, in which case the argument is faulty in some respect of logic you didn't notice, or it is tight and can be used to prove your argument about God is wrong.

Your spluttering about other stuff doesn't rescue you from this simple dichotomy. If that argument is taken to prove morality is factual, then it can be taken in the same way to prove religion is factual.... Or you could notice that you have endorsed a bad argument and just let it go. But then this thread is sort of done.
The OP is Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True.
The author mentioned God somewhere in the video.
Regardless,
the main theme of the argument is
'something matter,'
thus moral thing matter, so moral realism is almost certainly true.

To reinforce the above, I resort to;
"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 you just don't care about deductively valid inferences if you like the conclusion?
An argument must be strong if it argues to a conclusion you like and weak if it argues to a conclusion you don't like, even if that's the same argument with a variable swapped.

Is that the quality of philosopher you think you should be in order to attain the lofty goals you assume? You reckon that's gonna work out for you when you are published and arguing your case agaist professionals huh?
There is no way I will use the OP's argument to support my thesis.

In any case, the argument is deductive and rely on strong inductive premises, i.e. the masses are reasonable and rational people. Note 7+ billion people don't go about killing humans on an impulse compared to at most a few millions who are prone to killing or having the impulse to kill at any moment.

I merely presented the OP as a clue and possibility to moral realism and that the arguments for moral relativity against moral realism are weak.
Note also the poll where 56% of 3000+ philosophers agreed with moral realism, thus you have an uphill task to prove the majority wrong.
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 9:58 am Note these relevant conditions to the argument;

P3. Unless we are massively confused, our social practices indicate something about reality.
P4. We are not massively confused
I don't care about the conditions. I care about the implications of the conclusion.
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 10:15 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:12 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:04 am
The OP is Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True.
The author mentioned God somewhere in the video.
Regardless,
the main theme of the argument is
'something matter,'
thus moral thing matter, so moral realism is almost certainly true.

To reinforce the above, I resort to;
"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 you just don't care about deductively valid inferences if you like the conclusion?
An argument must be strong if it argues to a conclusion you like and weak if it argues to a conclusion you don't like, even if that's the same argument with a variable swapped.

Is that the quality of philosopher you think you should be in order to attain the lofty goals you assume? You reckon that's gonna work out for you when you are published and arguing your case agaist professionals huh?
There is no way I will use the OP's argument to support my thesis.

In any case, the argument is deductive and rely on strong inductive premises, i.e. the masses are reasonable and rational people. Note 7+ billion people don't go about killing humans on an impulse compared to at most a few millions who are prone to killing or having the impulse to kill at any moment.

I merely presented the OP as a clue and possibility to moral realism and that the arguments for moral relativity against moral realism are weak.
Note also the poll where 56% of 3000+ philosophers agreed with moral realism, thus you have an uphill task to prove the majority wrong.
So you just bought in because it agreed with your conclusion and you don't care about the quality of the argument used.
But the same argument does "prove" that God is probably real in the same way that it "proves" that morals are.
And it answers that other stupidly dumb thread you have opened yet again about whether reality is really really real.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:58 am Note these relevant conditions to the argument;

P3. Unless we are massively confused, our social practices indicate something about reality.
P4. We are not massively confused
I don't care about the conditions. I care about the implications of the conclusion.
The most we can critique is the based on the premises presented re whether it is valid or sound.

If we removed the premises, that there is nothing to critique other than to present a new issue.
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 10:33 am The most we can critique is the based on the premises presented re whether it is valid or sound.

If we removed the premises, that there is nothing to critique other than to present a new issue.
That's a fool's errand.

Just because the argument is unsound and invalid it doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong.

That's the fallacy fallacy.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12240
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 10:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:15 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:12 am
So you just don't care about deductively valid inferences if you like the conclusion?
An argument must be strong if it argues to a conclusion you like and weak if it argues to a conclusion you don't like, even if that's the same argument with a variable swapped.

Is that the quality of philosopher you think you should be in order to attain the lofty goals you assume? You reckon that's gonna work out for you when you are published and arguing your case agaist professionals huh?
There is no way I will use the OP's argument to support my thesis.

In any case, the argument is deductive and rely on strong inductive premises, i.e. the masses are reasonable and rational people. Note 7+ billion people don't go about killing humans on an impulse compared to at most a few millions who are prone to killing or having the impulse to kill at any moment.

I merely presented the OP as a clue and possibility to moral realism and that the arguments for moral relativity against moral realism are weak.
Note also the poll where 56% of 3000+ philosophers agreed with moral realism, thus you have an uphill task to prove the majority wrong.
So you just bought in because it agreed with your conclusion and you don't care about the quality of the argument used.
But the same argument does "prove" that God is probably real in the same way that it "proves" that morals are.
And it answers that other stupidly dumb thread you have opened yet again about whether reality is really really real.
I stated the arguments has a certain degree of quality to it but not as super strong.

No point for you to make plain stupidly dumb unsubstantiated statements.
Which ever thread you think is dumb, present your counter arguments?
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 »

Oops--big typo in my earlier post. It should have read (and I've since changed it to read): "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."
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 »

Talking to Veritas is just like talking to a telemarketer. Well, or a traditional religious apologist.

Objections are met with the repetition of scripted catchphrases.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:28 am Talking to Veritas is just like talking to a telemarketer. Well, or a traditional religious apologist.

Objections are met with the repetition of scripted catchphrases.
You can say the same about Philosophers.

Only, Philosophers pretend that scripted questions are somehow better than scripted catchphrases.
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 10:37 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:25 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:15 am
There is no way I will use the OP's argument to support my thesis.

In any case, the argument is deductive and rely on strong inductive premises, i.e. the masses are reasonable and rational people. Note 7+ billion people don't go about killing humans on an impulse compared to at most a few millions who are prone to killing or having the impulse to kill at any moment.

I merely presented the OP as a clue and possibility to moral realism and that the arguments for moral relativity against moral realism are weak.
Note also the poll where 56% of 3000+ philosophers agreed with moral realism, thus you have an uphill task to prove the majority wrong.
So you just bought in because it agreed with your conclusion and you don't care about the quality of the argument used.
But the same argument does "prove" that God is probably real in the same way that it "proves" that morals are.
And it answers that other stupidly dumb thread you have opened yet again about whether reality is really really real.
I stated the arguments has a certain degree of quality to it but not as super strong.

No point for you to make plain stupidly dumb unsubstantiated statements.
Which ever thread you think is dumb, present your counter arguments?
It's my "personal objectivity" opinion that all your threads about whether reality is really really real are total gash because the question is stupid and anyone still arguing about it is an antiquities dealer.

I'm going to enjoy making use of "objectivity-proper", you made up a really sensible notion there and I promise I will treat it with the respect it deserves.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:14 pm I'm going to enjoy making use of "objectivity-proper", you made up a really sensible notion there and I promise I will treat it with the respect it deserves.
Well, well, well. Look who figured out that humans use words like "true", "objective", "respectable", "relevant" (or any other adjective used to discriminate against alternative view-points) as a marketing brand for amplifying the significance of their own observations.
Post Reply