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

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 3:27 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 5:29 am
bahman wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 7:26 pm
What I am stressing is that there are moral facts that are of course personal, and not universal.
The fact is a 'fact' cannot be a personal subjective matter.
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.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 9:52 pm It is the rule of thumb together with likes or dislikes that define what we are allowed to do and what we are not allowed to do.
One can certainly (try to) organize a group or society that way. And once agreed on, those are the moral facts of that group. IOW it's true that they do that, think that way. Other groups would then have other moral facts.
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 1:30 am
What do you mean that time is a measure of change?
Didn't I go over this? Anyway, time is not on my hit parade of things to go round & round about. I'm leavin' this topic be.
No, you didn't explain what you mean by this.
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:30 am
It is a matter of logic. You don't need a holy book.
For me, God isn't about faith or logic. He seems to me, as I reverse-engineer things, to be an explanation for certain aspects or characteristics of man. I have certain ideas regardin' him, some firmer than others. That he was alone before Creation or surrounded by pre-existing substance or keepin' company with a whole slew of fellow Creators, none of that has much interest for me as a topic either.
So you are not happy with my logic?
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:30 am
A bat does not have the capacity to see a yellow apple as yellow yet it experiences it!
Are bats blind? That's news to me. Doesn't matter though. Helen Keller was blind and deaf and she apprehended the world as well as you or I (with a somewhat more limited set of avenues than you or I, of course).
It matters.
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:30 am
Can you prove your premise?: A man belongs to himself.
Absolutely. I can ask you, or anyone (and I mean anyone, anywhere), are you meant to be property?.

100% of the time, you, or anyone, will say not no, but hell no.

This is not a cultural thing or a preference: it's what every respondent knows about himself. He knows he belongs to himself (and he knows it's wrong to leash him...as I say: even the slaver knows this...hell, even sculptor as he (mis)educates us all on how roman slaves wanted to be slaves, knows he is his own and that it would be wrong to leash him...hell, all the amoralists in-forum know this).

In a world of huge difference and schism, this self-knowledge is the one thing all men, anywhere, any time, have in common.

No matter how high or low, how rich or poor, how smart or stupid, how (supposedly) amoral or moral: each and every one knows he belongs to himself. It's his nature. He cannot naturally crave the leash.

As I say: Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

It's self-evident.

If you find even *one person who sez yeah, I'm meant to be property, who truly believes this, then my notions are falsified.




*now, you have to play fair...even a crazy person knows he is his own...he is crazy though: his responses may not correspond to the question, so you'd have to control for that and other idiosyncrasies of understanding (for example, a devout Christian may say he's God's property...this is somewhat different, though, than sayin' other men ought to own you)
Not really, if you for example ask those couple youth who are in deep love with each other, then they might answer that they belong to another. I used to feel like this.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:56 am
bahman wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 3:27 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 5:29 am
The fact is a 'fact' cannot be a personal subjective matter.
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.
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 »

So you are not happy with my logic?
Oh, your logic is fine, it's just not a topic I give a rat's ass about.
It matters.
How so?
Not really, if you for example ask those couple youth who are in deep love with each other, then they might answer that they belong to another.
That's not the same thing as slavery.
I used to feel like this.
Who hasn't?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8481
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Moral realism is true

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 7:14 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 7:00 pm
bahman wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 6:14 pm
It is just a matter of time until people realize what is wrong or right. You don't like slavery, how about rape?
This like slavery is currently out of favour, but was not in the past, and is far more common than you think.

You seem to be assuming that morality is predicated on a thought that if it is wrong for anyone it has to be wrong for everyone, yet this has never been the basis.
Morality has always been very partial offering out its gift to some and not others.
How about rape?
I've no need to give another example since one is enough to validate moral relativism.
But since you ask...
Same thing. It was perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife in the UK and many other countries until the late 20thC, and is it still perfectly legal in many countries still.
All moral "rules" are relative to place, time, and such things as status and hierarchy.
If you are interested in this particular topic and wish to instruct yourself please look up Coverture.

And before you ask, this also relates to child protection too.
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 2:30 pm
So you are not happy with my logic?
Oh, your logic is fine, it's just not a topic I give a rat's ass about.
Okay!
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 2:30 pm
It matters.
How so?
Think of color-blind people. They don't see the colors as others see them. This means that the object does not has a specific color otherwise everybody would agree about the colors. In fact, there is a problem with the sensory system of color-blind people.
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 2:30 pm
Not really, if you for example ask those couple youth who are in deep love with each other, then they might answer that they belong to another.
That's not the same thing as slavery.
It could be worst than slavery if your partner is not the right person. In the end, you feel that you don't belong to yourself.
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 3:12 pm
bahman wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 7:14 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 7:00 pm
This like slavery is currently out of favour, but was not in the past, and is far more common than you think.

You seem to be assuming that morality is predicated on a thought that if it is wrong for anyone it has to be wrong for everyone, yet this has never been the basis.
Morality has always been very partial offering out its gift to some and not others.
How about rape?
I've no need to give another example since one is enough to validate moral relativism.
But since you ask...
Same thing. It was perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife in the UK and many other countries until the late 20thC, and is it still perfectly legal in many countries still.
All moral "rules" are relative to place, time, and such things as status and hierarchy.
If you are interested in this particular topic and wish to instruct yourself please look up Coverture.

And before you ask, this also relates to child protection too.
Oh my goodness. How awful people were. Anyway, they finally realize that a husband raping his wife is a wrong act.
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 3:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:12 pm
bahman wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 7:14 pm
How about rape?
I've no need to give another example since one is enough to validate moral relativism.
But since you ask...
Same thing. It was perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife in the UK and many other countries until the late 20thC, and is it still perfectly legal in many countries still.
All moral "rules" are relative to place, time, and such things as status and hierarchy.
If you are interested in this particular topic and wish to instruct yourself please look up Coverture.

And before you ask, this also relates to child protection too.
Oh my goodness. How awful people were. Anyway, they finally realize that a husband raping his wife is a wrong act.
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.
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 3:23 pm
bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:12 pm

I've no need to give another example since one is enough to validate moral relativism.
But since you ask...
Same thing. It was perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife in the UK and many other countries until the late 20thC, and is it still perfectly legal in many countries still.
All moral "rules" are relative to place, time, and such things as status and hierarchy.
If you are interested in this particular topic and wish to instruct yourself please look up Coverture.

And before you ask, this also relates to child protection too.
Oh my goodness. How awful people were. Anyway, they finally realize that a husband raping his wife is a wrong act.
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.
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 »

Think of color-blind people. They don't see the colors as others see them. This means that the object does not has a specific color otherwise everybody would agree about the colors. In fact, there is a problem with the sensory system of color-blind people.
I think you've lost my point, which is: the apple exists independent of me; it's color is what I apprehend, not what I create; if I'm color-blind, the apple is still red, I simply can't see it.
It could be worst than slavery if your partner is not the right person. In the end, you feel that you don't belong to yourself.
Oh, a guy can fall hard for a girl, sure. But it's not slavery. It's more like self-induced, temporary psychosis.
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 4:01 pm
Think of color-blind people. They don't see the colors as others see them. This means that the object does not has a specific color otherwise everybody would agree about the colors. In fact, there is a problem with the sensory system of color-blind people.
I think you've lost my point, which is: the apple exists independent of me; it's color is what I apprehend, not what I create; if I'm color-blind, the apple is still red, I simply can't see it.
That is you who don't take my point. Do you perceive color or electromagnetic radiation reflected from the apple?
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:01 pm
It could be worst than slavery if your partner is not the right person. In the end, you feel that you don't belong to yourself.
Oh, a guy can fall hard for a girl, sure. But it's not slavery. It's more like self-induced, temporary psychosis.
It is as bad as slavery.
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 »

Do you perceive color or electromagnetic radiation reflected from the apple?
The color is in the reflected light I apprehend.
It is as bad as slavery.
It can be a rollercoaster, yeah, but it ain't a moral issue.
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 4:21 pm
Do you perceive color or electromagnetic radiation reflected from the apple?
The color is in the reflected light I apprehend.
But light does not have color.
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 pm
It is as bad as slavery.
It can be a rollercoaster, yeah, but it ain't a moral issue.
There is a moral issue.
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 3:42 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:23 pm
bahman wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:21 pm
Oh my goodness. How awful people were. Anyway, they finally realize that a husband raping his wife is a wrong act.
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.
Post Reply