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

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:07 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:22 am
DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:07 pm So you are right that what is morally good [to be defined precisely] should not be related to what is preferred subjectively, loved and liked by anyone.

My view is what is morality is for every and each individual to recognize, understand, realize the nature of their inherent morality, then develop it so that they will flow spontaneously with what is inherently and naturally moral.
Where do you figure "what is inherently and naturally moral" obtains or emerges from? Where is it found/what is it a property of?
The above is not from DP Martin [he did not 'quote' properly in the above], they are my views.

I have discussed that with you before.

'Killing humans' is a moral element.

First, you can verify and justify within yourself, i.e. that you do not go about arbitrarily killing humans. Why?

Then note 99% of the nearly 8 billion people do not go about arbitrarily killing humans. Some 5% [soldiers, executors, and those permitted legally] may be willing to kill on duty and that is for various reason, not due to an inherent propensity to kill humans.

The above is a VERY STRONG inductive inference that there are real moral things that are inherent and natural in all humans.
No, this is not a sound inductive inference at all. Here's your argument:

Most humans don't arbitrarily kill humans; therefore humans ought not to kill humans.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, even if the premise is true. What this means is that the conclusion adds information that the premise doesn't justify. And time and time again you ignore my demand that you demonstrate why it does follow. Because you can't.

'If humans do/don't do X, then humans ought/ought not to do X.' That's your grossly immoral argument - because, as you've agreed, it means you think the following is sound:

'If humans arbitrarily kill humans, then humans ought to arbitrarily kill humans'.

And you claim that 'morality-proper' is about doing not-evil, defined as acting for the net benefit of individuals and society. What a joke.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:07 am
The above is a VERY STRONG inductive inference that there are real moral things that are inherent and natural in all humans.
It would just be a contingent fact of it were 100%, but that it's not 100% means that it is not inherent or natural in ALL humans. It's just contingent of the case in the vast majority. To suggest that makes anything right/correct/etc. is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:07 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:22 am
Where do you figure "what is inherently and naturally moral" obtains or emerges from? Where is it found/what is it a property of?
The above is not from DP Martin [he did not 'quote' properly in the above], they are my views.

I have discussed that with you before.

'Killing humans' is a moral element.

First, you can verify and justify within yourself, i.e. that you do not go about arbitrarily killing humans. Why?

Then note 99% of the nearly 8 billion people do not go about arbitrarily killing humans. Some 5% [soldiers, executors, and those permitted legally] may be willing to kill on duty and that is for various reason, not due to an inherent propensity to kill humans.

The above is a VERY STRONG inductive inference that there are real moral things that are inherent and natural in all humans.
No, this is not a sound inductive inference at all. Here's your argument:

Most humans don't arbitrarily kill humans; therefore humans ought not to kill humans.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, even if the premise is true. What this means is that the conclusion adds information that the premise doesn't justify. And time and time again you ignore my demand that you demonstrate why it does follow. Because you can't.

'If humans do/don't do X, then humans ought/ought not to do X.' That's your grossly immoral argument - because, as you've agreed, it means you think the following is sound:

'If humans arbitrarily kill humans, then humans ought to arbitrarily kill humans'.

And you claim that 'morality-proper' is about doing not-evil, defined as acting for the net benefit of individuals and society. What a joke.
Strawman again.
You are missing some premises, notable the necessary imputation of moral FSK.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:07 am
The above is a VERY STRONG inductive inference that there are real moral things that are inherent and natural in all humans.
It would just be a contingent fact of it were 100%, but that it's not 100% means that it is not inherent or natural in ALL humans. It's just contingent of the case in the vast majority. To suggest that makes anything right/correct/etc. is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Are you familiar with how VERY USEFUL scientific knowledge are confirmed?
Do scientists test every human being on Earth before they accept their scientific knowledge as representation of human reality?

To get an idea, read up on "Induction" in Russell's Problem of Philosophy,
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Prob ... /Chapter_6
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:46 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:07 am The above is not from DP Martin [he did not 'quote' properly in the above], they are my views.

I have discussed that with you before.

'Killing humans' is a moral element.

First, you can verify and justify within yourself, i.e. that you do not go about arbitrarily killing humans. Why?

Then note 99% of the nearly 8 billion people do not go about arbitrarily killing humans. Some 5% [soldiers, executors, and those permitted legally] may be willing to kill on duty and that is for various reason, not due to an inherent propensity to kill humans.

The above is a VERY STRONG inductive inference that there are real moral things that are inherent and natural in all humans.
No, this is not a sound inductive inference at all. Here's your argument:

Most humans don't arbitrarily kill humans; therefore humans ought not to kill humans.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, even if the premise is true. What this means is that the conclusion adds information that the premise doesn't justify. And time and time again you ignore my demand that you demonstrate why it does follow. Because you can't.

'If humans do/don't do X, then humans ought/ought not to do X.' That's your grossly immoral argument - because, as you've agreed, it means you think the following is sound:

'If humans arbitrarily kill humans, then humans ought to arbitrarily kill humans'.

And you claim that 'morality-proper' is about doing not-evil, defined as acting for the net benefit of individuals and society. What a joke.
Strawman again.
You are missing some premises, notable the necessary imputation of moral FSK.
No. As has been repeatedly explained to you, if your premise is that there is a system of morality that establishes moral facts, your conclusion that there are moral facts is worthless. It merely restates your premise. Why do you find this so hard to understand?
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 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:50 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:57 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:07 am
The above is a VERY STRONG inductive inference that there are real moral things that are inherent and natural in all humans.
It would just be a contingent fact of it were 100%, but that it's not 100% means that it is not inherent or natural in ALL humans. It's just contingent of the case in the vast majority. To suggest that makes anything right/correct/etc. is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Are you familiar with how VERY USEFUL scientific knowledge are confirmed?
Do scientists test every human being on Earth before they accept their scientific knowledge as representation of human reality?

To get an idea, read up on "Induction" in Russell's Problem of Philosophy,
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Prob ... /Chapter_6
If only this comment has anything at all to do with what I said above.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by DPMartin »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:22 am
DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:07 pm So you are right that what is morally good [to be defined precisely] should not be related to what is preferred subjectively, loved and liked by anyone.

My view is what is morality is for every and each individual to recognize, understand, realize the nature of their inherent morality, then develop it so that they will flow spontaneously with what is inherently and naturally moral.
Where do you figure "what is inherently and naturally moral" obtains or emerges from? Where is it found/what is it a property of?
man's need for an agreement to coexist peacefully or even accomplish a thing together. contracts law covenants marriages constitutions business transactions treaties people living in the same household everything mankind does involving another involves an agreement for it to be done peacefully and in a up-right fashion. the agreement is the morals. granted if there be no agreement then there's no moral to break nor be held to, there is no offence to another no matter what the result of the act is to the other.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:46 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:00 am

No, this is not a sound inductive inference at all. Here's your argument:

Most humans don't arbitrarily kill humans; therefore humans ought not to kill humans.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, even if the premise is true. What this means is that the conclusion adds information that the premise doesn't justify. And time and time again you ignore my demand that you demonstrate why it does follow. Because you can't.

'If humans do/don't do X, then humans ought/ought not to do X.' That's your grossly immoral argument - because, as you've agreed, it means you think the following is sound:

'If humans arbitrarily kill humans, then humans ought to arbitrarily kill humans'.

And you claim that 'morality-proper' is about doing not-evil, defined as acting for the net benefit of individuals and society. What a joke.
Strawman again.
You are missing some premises, notable the necessary imputation of moral FSK.
No. As has been repeatedly explained to you, if your premise is that there is a system of morality that establishes moral facts, your conclusion that there are moral facts is worthless. It merely restates your premise. Why do you find this so hard to understand?
As I had stated your sense of fact hides something mystical.
We should trash it out in a separate discussion.

Meanwhile I am referring to real organic moral machineries [we can f/off the use of 'fact'] in the brain which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the scientific and moral FSK.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:12 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:46 am
Strawman again.
You are missing some premises, notable the necessary imputation of moral FSK.
No. As has been repeatedly explained to you, if your premise is that there is a system of morality that establishes moral facts, your conclusion that there are moral facts is worthless. It merely restates your premise. Why do you find this so hard to understand?
As I had stated your sense of fact hides something mystical.
We should trash it out in a separate discussion.

Meanwhile I am referring to real organic moral machineries [we can f/off the use of 'fact'] in the brain which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the scientific and moral FSK.
Changing the name doesn't improve the argument: neural programming/moral driver/real organic moral machinery.

What is it that makes a 'real organic machinery' a moral machinery?

You claim that a physical process in our brains makes us behave in a certain way. You claim that we are programmed not to kill humans - so we ought not to kill humans.

And you agree that we could, instead, be programmed to kill humans - in which case we ought to kill humans.

It follows that you think that whether humans ought to kill humans is contingent upon our neural programming. So the fact of the matter has nothing to do with what the rest of us call morality - rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, propriety and impropriety, and so on. It's just about consistency with programming: we're programmed to do/not to do this, so we ought to do/not to do this.

And you call this moral realism?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:12 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:07 am

No. As has been repeatedly explained to you, if your premise is that there is a system of morality that establishes moral facts, your conclusion that there are moral facts is worthless. It merely restates your premise. Why do you find this so hard to understand?
As I had stated your sense of fact hides something mystical.
We should trash it out in a separate discussion.

Meanwhile I am referring to real organic moral machineries [we can f/off the use of 'fact'] in the brain which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the scientific and moral FSK.
Changing the name doesn't improve the argument: neural programming/moral driver/real organic moral machinery.

What is it that makes a 'real organic machinery' a moral machinery?

You claim that a physical process in our brains makes us behave in a certain way. You claim that we are programmed not to kill humans - so we ought not to kill humans.

And you agree that we could, instead, be programmed to kill humans - in which case we ought to kill humans.

It follows that you think that whether humans ought to kill humans is contingent upon our neural programming. So the fact of the matter has nothing to do with what the rest of us call morality - rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, propriety and impropriety, and so on. It's just about consistency with programming: we're programmed to do/not to do this, so we ought to do/not to do this.

And you call this moral realism?
You missed out a lot of my premises, thus your's a strawman.

One,
Yes, humans are "programmed" to kill BUT I stated very clearly that is not to kill humans, i.e. not their own kind.
But because humans are "programmed" kill [mainly for food to survive, animals, plants,] as the primary 'program,' humans are also evolved with inhibitors to ensure they do not kill their own kind! [that is the physical moral things/elements]
Some humans do kill or have inclinations to kill humans because their programmed inhibitors are damaged, weakened, not working optimally, etc.
Get it! I have stated this a '1000' times.

There are other missing premises, I won't bother to repeat.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:46 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:12 am
As I had stated your sense of fact hides something mystical.
We should trash it out in a separate discussion.

Meanwhile I am referring to real organic moral machineries [we can f/off the use of 'fact'] in the brain which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within the scientific and moral FSK.
Changing the name doesn't improve the argument: neural programming/moral driver/real organic moral machinery.

What is it that makes a 'real organic machinery' a moral machinery?

You claim that a physical process in our brains makes us behave in a certain way. You claim that we are programmed not to kill humans - so we ought not to kill humans.

And you agree that we could, instead, be programmed to kill humans - in which case we ought to kill humans.

It follows that you think that whether humans ought to kill humans is contingent upon our neural programming. So the fact of the matter has nothing to do with what the rest of us call morality - rightness and wrongness, goodness and badness, propriety and impropriety, and so on. It's just about consistency with programming: we're programmed to do/not to do this, so we ought to do/not to do this.

And you call this moral realism?
You missed out a lot of my premises, thus your's a strawman.

One,
Yes, humans are "programmed" to kill BUT I stated very clearly that is not to kill humans, i.e. not their own kind.
But because humans are "programmed" kill [mainly for food to survive, animals, plants,] as the primary 'program,' humans are also evolved with inhibitors to ensure they do not kill their own kind! [that is the physical moral things/elements]
Some humans do kill or have inclinations to kill humans because their programmed inhibitors are damaged, weakened, not working optimally, etc.
Get it! I have stated this a '1000' times.

There are other missing premises, I won't bother to repeat.
As usual, this doesn't address what I'm saying at all. Waste of time.
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 »

DPMartin wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:14 pm man's need for an agreement to coexist peacefully or even accomplish a thing together. contracts law covenants marriages constitutions business transactions treaties people living in the same household everything mankind does involving another involves an agreement for it to be done peacefully and in a up-right fashion. the agreement is the morals. granted if there be no agreement then there's no moral to break nor be held to, there is no offence to another no matter what the result of the act is to the other.
That doesn't sound like describing something that's not simply a matter of what is preferred subjectively, loved and liked by anyone.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True

Post by DPMartin »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:59 pm
DPMartin wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:14 pm man's need for an agreement to coexist peacefully or even accomplish a thing together. contracts law covenants marriages constitutions business transactions treaties people living in the same household everything mankind does involving another involves an agreement for it to be done peacefully and in a up-right fashion. the agreement is the morals. granted if there be no agreement then there's no moral to break nor be held to, there is no offence to another no matter what the result of the act is to the other.
That doesn't sound like describing something that's not simply a matter of what is preferred subjectively, loved and liked by anyone.
that's the mistake many make, they see morals as according to their own personal feelings and view. morals are not subjective nor objective actually morals are relative to those in the agreement. it seems many try to jam morals into a subjective or objective box with disregard for anything else.

if one is Muslim then one is bound to the rules "morals" set in Islam. if one isn't Muslim then one isn't bound to that set of morals. if one isn't married then one isn't bound to what is promised when couples marry, and no one outside of that marriage agreement is bound to it either. also, those in the agreement should they break the agreement such a infidelity and the like is an immoral act because of the morals agreed to.


if morals are subjective then how is it you have to agree to another's set of morals. do they have the right to make you agree? and objective, na, nations religions cultures don't live by the same rules "morals" and just the act along of that fact proves morals are not objective, if i understand that correctly.

man believes in most part they are the judge of what is good and evil, and that will not be objective. hence the agreed set of rules "morals" and morals are relative to the agreed prevails.

also, if you want to go God as in the biblical God, He maintains a agreement with all those who He has a relationship with, Adam and Eve and all their children Noah and all his children Abraham and all his children. they're called covenants which is an agreement. even the law by the hand of Moses and the ten commandments are a covenant.
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 »

DPMartin wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:21 pm if morals are subjective then how is it you have to agree to another's set of morals.
You don't have to agree, first off. And if you don't agree, then obviously that isn't your moral view.

You can not agree and choose to act as if you do, of course, which people will do because they have a preference to, for example, not face the social consequences of not acting as if they agree, or because they have a preference for the benefits that arrive with acting as if they agree.

The bottom line is that you're not describing anything that's other than people having dispositions, opinions, preferences, etc., which is what some of us use the term "subjective" for. "Subjective" in my usage refers to something being a mental phenomenon. If it's a mental phenomenon, it's subjective.

Persons' behavior can be complex, where they have to make decisions about conflicting desires, conflicting sets of preferences, etc. That fact doesn't make any of this something other than people acting according to their dispositions, their preferences, and so on. It's just that it's not a simple matter of only one decision at a time, with nothing else to consider.
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: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:33 pm You can not agree and choose to act as if you do, of course, which people will do because they have a preference to, for example, not face the social consequences of not acting as if they agree, or because they have a preference for the benefits that arrive with acting as if they agree.
So if there's a difference between agreeing and acting as if you are agreeing; then there must also be a difference between agreeing and acting as if you are disagreeing.

What's the difference between acting as if you are disagreeing and actually disagreeing?
Post Reply