Moral realism is true

[bahman]

Our life is not indifferent since there are likes and dislikes. The moral facts are related to likes and dislikes. Therefore, moral facts exist. Therefore, moral realism is true.

[henry quirk]

Our life is not indifferent since there are likes and dislikes. The moral facts are related to likes and dislikes. Therefore, moral facts exist. Therefore, moral realism is true.

Now, with this one I can't agree.

Moral fact has nuthin' to do with like, dislikes, or preferences.

Moral fact, like any other fact, is about what is.

Fire burns no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it.

A man belongs to himself no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it: It's wrong to slave him, rape him, kill him, rob him no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it.

It is what it is.

[bahman]

Our life is not indifferent since there are likes and dislikes. The moral facts are related to likes and dislikes. Therefore, moral facts exist. Therefore, moral realism is true.

Now, with this one I can't agree.

Moral fact has nuthin' to do with like, dislikes, or preferences.

Moral fact, like any other fact, is about what is.

Fire burns no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it.

What if there is no one to experience the fire. The fire still burns but who cares? Moreover, if someone likes to put his hand in the fire because he/she is a masochist, doesn't he/she has the right to do it. It is his/her life at the end.

A man belongs to himself no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it: It's wrong to slave him, rape him, kill him, rob him no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it.

It is what it is.

What if the opposite is true. Think of the locked-in syndrome. The person in such a situation has the right to die.

[henry quirk]

if someone likes to put his hand in the fire because he/she is a masochist, doesn't he/she has the right to do it. It is his/her life at the end

.

That's my point: it's his life. If he's stupid enough to burn himself, then he can do that. But no one ought force his hand into the fire against his will. As you say: You have all rights when it comes to you but you have no right to decide about others.

And, of course, none of us are obligated to participate in his stupidity. Joe like to burn himself, okay, but I'm not obligated to give him or sell him the matches, or have him in my home, or employ him. Nor am I obligated to attend to his injuries after the fact. His life, his consequences.

We have no moral obligation to aid his stupidity. Compassion may drive any of us to offer some kind of assistance, but compassion is voluntary.

Think of the locked-in syndrome. The person in such a situation has the right to die.

Sure he has the right, but we -- you and me -- we haven't the right to assume that's what he wants.

If I stroke out, end up immobile, I'm probably gonna tolerate it today in the hope of a cure tomorrow.

[bahman]

if someone likes to put his hand in the fire because he/she is a masochist, doesn't he/she has the right to do it. It is his/her life at the end

.

That's my point: it's his life. If he's stupid enough to burn himself, then he can do that. But no one ought force his hand into the fire against his will. As you say: You have all rights when it comes to you but you have no right to decide about others.

And, of course, none of us are obligated to participate in his stupidity. Joe like to burn himself, okay, but I'm not obligated to give him or sell him the matches, or have him in my home, or employ him. Nor am I obligated to attend to his injuries after the fact. His life, his consequences.

We have no moral obligation to aid his stupidity. Compassion may drive any of us to offer some kind of assistance, but compassion is voluntary.

I agree with what you said except for the fact that a masochist is not stupid.

Think of the locked-in syndrome. The person in such a situation has the right to die.

Sure he has the right, but we -- you and me -- we haven't the right to assume that's what he wants.

Sure we don't have the right to decide instead of him/her.

If I stroke out, end up immobile, I'm probably gonna tolerate it today in the hope of a cure tomorrow.

It seems that you like your life a lot! That is why you hope for a better life that you like.

[henry quirk]

I agree with what you said except for the fact that a masochist is not stupid.

In my book: anybody who seeks out pain becuz they find it pleasurable is moron or a crazy person.

It seems that you like your life a lot!

I really do, and I'll tolerate a lot to preserve and further it.
(won't tolerate the leash, though...I'm dead or the leash-holder is...there's no other option)

[Age]

Our life is not indifferent since there are likes and dislikes. The moral facts are related to likes and dislikes. Therefore, moral facts exist. Therefore, moral realism is true.

Now, with this one I can't agree.

Moral fact has nuthin' to do with like, dislikes, or preferences.

Moral fact, like any other fact, is about what is.

Fire burns no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it.

A man belongs to himself no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it: It's wrong to slave him, rape him, kill him, rob him no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it.

But what happens if this 'man' WANTS to be slaved, raped, killed, and/or robbed? Is is then 'wrong' to slave, rape, kill, and/or rob 'him'?

If yes, then WHY?

It is what it is.

After all if a 'man' WANTS to be killed, then 'it is what it is'.

[Age]

Our life is not indifferent since there are likes and dislikes. The moral facts are related to likes and dislikes. Therefore, moral facts exist. Therefore, moral realism is true.

Now, with this one I can't agree.

Moral fact has nuthin' to do with like, dislikes, or preferences.

Moral fact, like any other fact, is about what is.

Fire burns no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it.

What if there is no one to experience the fire. The fire still burns but who cares?

What has this got to do with ANY 'thing' here?

Moreover, if someone likes to put his hand in the fire because he/she is a masochist, doesn't he/she has the right to do it. It is his/her life at the end.

A man belongs to himself no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it: It's wrong to slave him, rape him, kill him, rob him no matter what anyone thinks or feels about it.

It is what it is.

What if the opposite is true. Think of the locked-in syndrome. The person in such a situation has the right to die.

[Age]

if someone likes to put his hand in the fire because he/she is a masochist, doesn't he/she has the right to do it. It is his/her life at the end

.

That's my point: it's his life. If he's stupid enough to burn himself, then he can do that. But no one ought force his hand into the fire against his will. As you say: You have all rights when it comes to you but you have no right to decide about others.

So, according to this "logic" NO one has a 'right' to decide that "others" should question one BEFORE they shoot them DEAD.

See, "henry quirk", you BELIEVE you can SHOOT "another" DEAD when you FEEL like it, correct? And, you BELIEVE absolutely NO one has a 'right' to decide to tell you that you can NOT do that, right?

And, of course, none of us are obligated to participate in his stupidity. Joe like to burn himself, okay, but I'm not obligated to give him or sell him the matches, or have him in my home, or employ him.

And none of us are obligated to participate into your STUPIDITY in wanting to own a gun, correct. "henry quirk" wants to own a gun and KILL animals, okay, but I am NOT obligated to give you nor sell you the gun, nor have you in my home, nor employ you correct?

After all NONE of 'us' want your kind of STUPIDITY in our home, earth, correct?

Or, does this kind of "logic" only work one way?

Nor am I obligated to attend to his injuries after the fact. His life, his consequences.

Is ANY one obligated to attend to your STUPIDITY also "henry quirk"?

We have no moral obligation to aid his stupidity. Compassion may drive any of us to offer some kind of assistance, but compassion is voluntary.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Imagine if this was REALLY FULLY True how long the human race would have existed for? One generation would not have even evolved into the second one.

Think of the locked-in syndrome. The person in such a situation has the right to die.

Sure he has the right, but we -- you and me -- we haven't the right to assume that's what he wants.

Do you have a 'right' to ASSUME ANY 'thing'?

If yes, then 'what', EXACTLY?

If I stroke out, end up immobile, I'm probably gonna tolerate it today in the hope of a cure tomorrow.

But does ANY one have the obligation to care for, or care about, you, "henry quirk"?

If yes, then 'who', EXACTLY?

[Age]

I agree with what you said except for the fact that a masochist is not stupid.

In my book: anybody who seeks out pain becuz they find it pleasurable is moron or a crazy person.

A TYPICAL response from one who has NEVER delved into the life of "others".

Which is probably due to the Fact that this one, sincerely, BELIEVES that it has absolutely NO obligation AT ALL for absolutely ANY compassion AT ALL for "others".

It seems that you like your life a lot!

I really do, and I'll tolerate a lot to preserve and further it.

LOL that is it "henry quirk". KILL absolutely ANY 'thing' in pursuit of and for "your" OWN 'self'.

Which REALLY is Truly LAUGHABLE considering the EXTREMELY very short time you have left of living.

(won't tolerate the leash, though...I'm dead or the leash-holder is...there's no other option)

Because of the place and time 'you', "henry quirk", have been living in 'you' have been 'leashed' since birth. 'you' are just NOT YET AWARE of this Fact.

This is because 'you' are SO LEASHED.

[Age]

Our life is not indifferent since there are likes and dislikes. The moral facts are related to likes and dislikes. Therefore, moral facts exist. Therefore, moral realism is true.

How 'moral facts' are FOUND and OBTAINED is WHY 'moral facts' EXIST.

[henry quirk]

See, "henry quirk", you BELIEVE you can SHOOT "another" DEAD when you FEEL like it, correct?

nope

And none of us are obligated to participate into your STUPIDITY in wanting to own a gun, correct(?)

nope

I am NOT obligated to give you nor sell you the gun, nor have you in my home, nor employ you correct?

this is correct

Is ANY one obligated to attend to your STUPIDITY also "henry quirk"?

nope

But does ANY one have the obligation to care for, or care about, you, "henry quirk"?

nope

[Age]

See, "henry quirk", you BELIEVE you can SHOOT "another" DEAD when you FEEL like it, correct?

nope

And none of us are obligated to participate into your STUPIDITY in wanting to own a gun, correct(?)

nope

I am NOT obligated to give you nor sell you the gun, nor have you in my home, nor employ you correct?

this is correct

Is ANY one obligated to attend to your STUPIDITY also "henry quirk"?

nope

But does ANY one have the obligation to care for, or care about, you, "henry quirk"?

nope

So when EXACTLY do you BELIEVE you can SHOOT "another" DEAD?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Our life is not indifferent since there are likes and dislikes.
The moral facts are related to likes and dislikes.
Therefore, moral facts exist.
Therefore, moral realism is true.

Your argument is very slipshod. You should at least defined what is 'Morality' and 'fact' first before you proceed.

• Morality (from Latin moralitas 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
  
  A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
  Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

The implication for the above re fact is, all facts are conditioned upon a specific FSK, in the above case, it is the scientific FSK.
Once the fact emerges from a specific FSK it is independent of individual[s] mind but not the collective mind.
As such, moral facts emerge and are conditioned upon a specific moral FSK, thus independent of the individual[s]' mind.

Your 'likes and dislikes' do not qualify as moral facts [as defined above] because 'likes' and 'dislikes' in this case are conditioned [very subjective] upon individual[s] sentiments, i.e. not independent.

Thus your argument is not valid.

[henry quirk]

So when EXACTLY do you BELIEVE you can SHOOT "another" DEAD?

I can defend myself and my property, and I ought to defend others. If I can do this without killin', I ought to. But, if I can't, I will.