Moral realism is 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
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:32 pm
bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:42 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:23 pm
For the moment yes.
And one day it is the woman's right to chose what to do with her own body in the matter of abortions and the next day it is illegal.
Your problem is that you are trying to project your personal moral values and trying to pretend they are universal.
They are NOT.
It is about likes or dislikes. No one like to be raped. Therefore, it is prohibited.
Not universally true.
It is universally true, otherwise, people won't eventually come to the conclusion that rape is wrong.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by henry quirk »

But light does not have color.
It carries color.
There is a moral issue.
How so? Joe is head over heels for Jane. She has bewitched him. All he thinks about morning, noon, and night is Jane. Mebbe Jane feels the same way about him. Mebbe not. Where's morality in this psycho-hormonal insanity?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:32 pm
bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:42 pm
It is about likes or dislikes. No one like to be raped. Therefore, it is prohibited.
Not universally true.
It is universally true, otherwise, people won't eventually come to the conclusion that rape is wrong.
not everyone.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by bahman »

henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:38 pm
But light does not have color.
It carries color.
It does not. Light is nothing more than electromagnetic waves. There is no color there. Color in fact is created inside your brain. It is a fact. If all part of your sensory system works fine but you have brain damage then you can not see.
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:38 pm
There is a moral issue.
How so? Joe is head over heels for Jane. She has bewitched him. All he thinks about morning, noon, and night is Jane. Mebbe Jane feels the same way about him. Mebbe not. Where's morality in this psycho-hormonal insanity?
Think of this situation, Joe falls in love with Jane as Jane falls in love with him too. They come together for a while until Jane falls in love with another guy. She decides to leave Joe in a desperate situation and have fun with the second guy. Does Jane is responsible for causing pain to Joe?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:39 pm
bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:32 pm

Not universally true.
It is universally true, otherwise, people won't eventually come to the conclusion that rape is wrong.
not everyone.
I know some people like to rape but that does not mean that they are allowed.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:56 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:39 pm
bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:37 pm
It is universally true, otherwise, people won't eventually come to the conclusion that rape is wrong.
not everyone.
I know some people like to rape but that does not mean that they are allowed.
You are not receiving.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by henry quirk »

Light is nothing more than electromagnetic waves.
And color is frequency.
Does Jane is responsible for causing pain to Joe?
If Jane and Joe had no covenant, and if she caused no physical harm, then -- even though she might be flighty bitch -- no, she's not morally responsible for Joe's woes.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by bahman »

henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:06 pm
Light is nothing more than electromagnetic waves.
And color is frequency.
Ok, I will buy that for sake of argument. Do you know that the light is gone once it hit the retina? All you have is the electrical current? What is electrical current? Moving electron? Does moving electron also have color?
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:06 pm
Does Jane is responsible for causing pain to Joe?
If Jane and Joe had no covenant, and if she caused no physical harm, then -- even though she might be flighty bitch -- no, she's not morally responsible for Joe's woes.
They were together and mental harm is made.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 7:25 am
Age wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 4:34 am How do you define 'moral objectivism'?

See, what you are 'trying to' argue against might not even exist to begin with anyway.
I believe, in this case, 'arguing against', means arguing against the existence of objective morals or moral facts. As opposed to arguing against abortion, say.
Yes I understand this, and this is why I posed my clarifying question the way I did.

All one has to do is just define what ANY word or term means, and then if 'it' exists or not becomes KNOWN.

It is ALL VERY SIMPLE, REALLY.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:56 am
bahman wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 3:27 pm
It can, given the definition of fact.
Here is the more credible definition of what is fact which cannot be a personal subject fact.
  • 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.
I have also defined
'a fact is always conditioned upon a specific framework and system of knowledge.

If you are relying on a personal framework, that is at best an opinion, or if you insist an opinionated-fact.
Like or dislike is not opinion.
Strawman!

Note I stated "personal" framework.
Like or dislike within a personal framework is an opinion.

Like or dislike within a universal framework can be a fact but this must be verified with empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.

No humans would like to be killed is a fundamental biological and psychological fact that is supported by empirical evidences. This is universal and thus a fact.
There may be people with suicidal tendencies and 'like' to commit suicide, but they are the abnormal ones due to neural defects.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by henry quirk »

bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:17 pmDo you know that the light is gone once it hit the retina? All you have is the electrical current? What is electrical current? Moving electron? Does moving electron also have color?
Oh, I don't deny apprehension involves a long and complex causal series of events, and that apprehending is dependent upon the condition of the eyes, of the optic nerve, and of the brain, upon the nature of the intervening medium, and so on, and that light, electricity, and biochemicals are involved. I simply say: the apple exists independent of me, and when I see, taste, smell, or heft the apple in my hand, what I'm seein', tastin', smellin', or heftin' is as it appears to be. I'm not creatin' a simulation in my head: I'm directly apprehending the apple as it is.
They were together and mental harm is made.
If Jane does a Bobbit on you, or steals your car, or cleans out your savings, or sells you to a trafficker, or drugs you, or ruins your reputation, or takes a piss on a formal covenant: she's committed a moral wrong...she's violated your person.

She hurts your feelings: sorry, but no. she may be, as I say, a flighty bitch, but she's not bein' immoral, just mean.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12246
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:39 pm
bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:32 pm Not universally true.
It is universally true, otherwise, people won't eventually come to the conclusion that rape is wrong.
not everyone.
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:32 pm
bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:42 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:23 pm
For the moment yes.
And one day it is the woman's right to chose what to do with her own body in the matter of abortions and the next day it is illegal.
Your problem is that you are trying to project your personal moral values and trying to pretend they are universal.
They are NOT.
It is about likes or dislikes. No one like to be raped. Therefore, it is prohibited.
Not universally true.
Note: Since rape is against a person's will it cannot be a matter of 'like'.
As such the dislike [abhorrence, detest] of rape is wrong and is universal.

Some people may like violent sex agreeing to be beaten, slashed or even eaten, but there is 'willingness' thus not rape as defined.

That rape was not illegal is not directly a moral issue but rather that is a legal issue.

Rape is wrong universally is a moral fact that is supported by the physical neural connections within a person's brain that tantamount to the person disliking rape.

The trend of legal acts against rape since 500 years till the present is evidence of the unfoldment of the moral fact 'rape is wrong' within the brains of all humans.

The objective moral fact that rape is wrong is one evidence Moral Realism is true.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:34 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:39 pm
bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:37 pm
It is universally true, otherwise, people won't eventually come to the conclusion that rape is wrong.
not everyone.
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:32 pm
bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:42 pm
It is about likes or dislikes. No one like to be raped. Therefore, it is prohibited.
Not universally true.
Note: Since rape is against a person's will it cannot be a matter of 'like'.
As such the dislike [abhorrence, detest] of rape is wrong and is universal.

Some people may like violent sex agreeing to be beaten, slashed or even eaten, but there is 'willingness' thus not rape as defined.

That rape was not illegal is not directly a moral issue but rather that is a legal issue.

Rape is wrong universally is a moral fact that is supported by the physical neural connections within a person's brain that tantamount to the person disliking rape.

The trend of legal acts against rape since 500 years till the present is evidence of the unfoldment of the moral fact 'rape is wrong' within the brains of all humans.

The objective moral fact that rape is wrong is one evidence Moral Realism is true.
No moral transgression is objectively right or wrong, since no moral objection is set in stone, subject to change historically, culturally, socially and contingent on circumstances enjoying the benefits of mitigation.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:05 am
bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:56 am
Here is the more credible definition of what is fact which cannot be a personal subject fact.
  • 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.
I have also defined
'a fact is always conditioned upon a specific framework and system of knowledge.

If you are relying on a personal framework, that is at best an opinion, or if you insist an opinionated-fact.
Like or dislike is not opinion.
Strawman!

Note I stated "personal" framework.
Like or dislike within a personal framework is an opinion.

Like or dislike within a universal framework can be a fact but this must be verified with empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.

No humans would like to be killed is a fundamental biological and psychological fact that is supported by empirical evidences. This is universal and thus a fact.
There may be people with suicidal tendencies and 'like' to commit suicide, but they are the abnormal ones due to neural defects.
Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by bahman »

henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:17 pmDo you know that the light is gone once it hit the retina? All you have is the electrical current? What is electrical current? Moving electron? Does moving electron also have color?
Oh, I don't deny apprehension involves a long and complex causal series of events, and that apprehending is dependent upon the condition of the eyes, of the optic nerve, and of the brain, upon the nature of the intervening medium, and so on, and that light, electricity, and biochemicals are involved. I simply say: the apple exists independent of me, and when I see, taste, smell, or heft the apple in my hand, what I'm seein', tastin', smellin', or heftin' is as it appears to be. I'm not creatin' a simulation in my head: I'm directly apprehending the apple as it is.
What do you mean by directly? The light that comes from the apple is gone.
Post Reply