Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Recently there had been a lot of arguments that Moral Disagreements do support moral realism.
Those who advance antirealist conclusions often rely on considerations to do with disagreement to support their views.
The basic idea, developed in the two-part argument offered below, is that the many moral disagreements we actually encounter, as well as the hypothesized Moral disagreements we can anticipate among more ideal judges, are best explained by central antirealist assumptions.

I think that this line of argument is mistaken at a number of points, and will try to reveal its weaknesses in what follows.
Chapter 9 in Moral realism: A Defence; Russ Shafer-Landau
Here is the typical realist shoot-from-the hip approach:
Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:00 pm This question comes up ad nauseam
I am continually puzzled by the moral objectivists.
What are they scared of.
You've only to take a moment to examine the history of morality to know with utter certainty that there are no certainties or objective facts that stand the test of time.
Justice is always handed out unevenly; either in mitigation of class, status or circumstance; or restricted due to age, race, and low status or social standing.
That it the world we live in.
Your knowledge re Morality and Ethics is too narrow and shallow.
Yeah, it is common sense moral disagreement denote moral relativism, i.e. not objective, but on more serious consideration, moral disagreements actually support moral realism, i.e. moral Objectivity.

Analogy, different people may disagree on how to avoid diabetes, on what food to avoid and to eat, but the underlying fact that intake of excessive glucose through various sources is a metabolic problem to health is inherent to all humans, i.e. objective.

Recently there had been a lot of arguments that Moral Disagreements do support moral realism. Example,
Since intractable disagreement among wise, informed and rational people about philosophical matters does not license a verdict of philosophical antirealism, it should not do so when the subject is ethics proper.
https://academic.oup.com/book/32534/cha ... m=fulltext
There are also arguments that Moral Disagreements has no weight against Moral Realism - thus Moral Objectivity.
Moral disagreement is widely held to pose a threat for metaethical realism and objectivity. In this paper I attempt to understand how it is that moral disagreement is supposed to present a problem for metaethical realism. I do this by going through several distinct (though often related) arguments from disagreement, carefully distinguishing between them, and critically evaluating their merits. My conclusions are rather skeptical: Some of the arguments I discuss fail rather clearly. Others supply with a challenge to realism, but not one we have any reason to believe realism cannot address successfully. Others beg the question against the moral realist, and yet others raise serious objections to realism, but ones that — when carefully stated — can be seen not to be essentially related to moral disagreement.
Arguments based on moral disagreement itself have almost no weight, I conclude, against moral realism.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2607198
Note this thread;
Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39771
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Notes:

Antirealist Argument From Disagreement
Blackburn, Simon (1985). ‘Errors and the Phenomenology of Value’, in Honderich 1985 and Blackburn 1993a.
Hare, R. M. (1963). Freedom and Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. New York: Penguin.
Stevenson, C. L. (1937). ‘The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms’, in Stevenson 1963.
Williams, Bernard (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Replies & Counter in the following;
Brink, David (1989). Moral realism and the Foundations of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hurley, Susan (1985). ‘Objectivity and Disagreement’, in Honderich 1985.
McNaughton, David (1988). Moral Vision. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Miller, Richard (1985). ‘Ways of Moral Learning’, Philosophical Review, 94: 507–56.
Shafer-Landau, Russ (1994a). ‘Ethical Disagreement, Ethical Objectivity and Moral Indeterminacy’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54: 331–44.
Foot, Philippa (1958). ‘Moral Arguments’, in Foot 1978b.
Foot, Philippa (1959). ‘Moral beliefs’, in Foot 1978b.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9556
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:49 am

Analogy, different people may disagree on how to avoid diabetes, on what food to avoid and to eat, but the underlying fact that intake of excessive glucose through various sources is a metabolic problem to health is inherent to all humans, i.e. objective.
That isn't analogous to a disagreement on a moral issue.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:11 am That isn't analogous to a disagreement on a moral issue.
ALL disagreements are of moral nature. They are disagreements about some ought.

How we ought to define what's going on.
What we ought to think about what's going on.
What we ought to say about what's going on.
How we ought to act about what's going on.

Correcting definitions.
Correcting thinking.
Correcting speaking.
Correcting behaviour.

Correcting! Correcting! Correcting!
Moralizing! Moralizing! Moralizing!

You are correcting me. I am correcting you. We are correcting ourselves.
You are moralizing. I am moralizing. We are moralizing.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9556
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:18 am
Harbal wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:11 am That isn't analogous to a disagreement on a moral issue.
ALL disagreements are of moral nature. They are disagreements about some ought.
An ought doesn't have to be related to a moral issue.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:22 am An ought doesn't have to be related to a moral issue.
Uhuh. Here we go again!

Some oughts ought not be related to moral issues.
Some oughts ought to be related to moral issues.

Which ought ought to be the correct ought?

ALL oughts are value-judgments. Value system. Moral system.

Potato/potatoh.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9556
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:24 am
Harbal wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:22 am An ought doesn't have to be related to a moral issue.
Uhuh. Here we go again!
You don't have to come if you don't want to.
Some oughts ought not be related to moral issues.
Some oughts ought to be related to moral issues.

Which ought ought to be the correct ought?

ALL oughts are value-judgments. Value system. Moral system.

Potato/potatoh.
I wonder what prompted you to blurt that out. :?
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Skepdick »

Harbal wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:34 am I wonder what prompted you to blurt that out. :?
The fact that all oughts are normatives. And so trying to draw some distinction between oughts and morals doesn't buy you the separation necessary for committing the special pleading you need to make the claim you are trying to make.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9556
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Harbal »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:37 am
Harbal wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:34 am I wonder what prompted you to blurt that out. :?
The fact that all oughts are normatives. And so trying to draw some distinction between oughts and morals doesn't buy you the separation necessary for committing the special pleading you need to make the claim you are trying to make.
I don't know what you mean by that, but I expect I would disagree with it if I did know what it meant.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8528
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:49 am Here is the typical realist shoot-from-the hip approach:
Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:00 pm This question comes up ad nauseam
I am continually puzzled by the moral objectivists.
What are they scared of.
You've only to take a moment to examine the history of morality to know with utter certainty that there are no certainties or objective facts that stand the test of time.
Justice is always handed out unevenly; either in mitigation of class, status or circumstance; or restricted due to age, race, and low status or social standing.
That it the world we live in.
Your knowledge re Morality and Ethics is too narrow and shallow.
Repeating your bullshit does not make it more true.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:49 am Analogy, different people may disagree on how to avoid diabetes, on what food to avoid and to eat, but the underlying fact that intake of excessive glucose through various sources is a metabolic problem to health is inherent to all humans, i.e. objective.
That isn't analogous to a disagreement on a moral issue.
Why not?
What is your definition of morality? See my post below.

There is an inherent moral function and drive in ALL humans just like the function to breathe, eat, fuck, be safe, etc.
Humans may have all sort of sexual tendencies Hetero .. [LBGTQ...] or even asexual [thus disagreements], but there is no denying they are embedded with the neural correlates of the sexual drive. In the case of asexual, the neural correlates are damaged.
So there is objectivity [generic sexual drive] within relativity [sexual tendencies].

The human metabolic function is also controlled by an main metabolic function that generate the hunger drive which exists in ALL humans.
How one satisfy the hunger drive [objective] is relative [food preferences]. Some vegan will disagree with [may evil kill those who eat meat] and vice versa.

There is an inherent moral drive and function in ALL humans [with different degree of activeness] but there are different ways thus disagreements in how to deal with moral issues.
Even the moral nihilists will have the moral correlates in their brain, except their are damage or dormant.

So how is the above examples not analogous to the moral functions in the brain of ALL human beings?
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:49 am Here is the typical realist shoot-from-the hip approach:
Sculptor wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:00 pm This question comes up ad nauseam
I am continually puzzled by the moral objectivists.
What are they scared of.
You've only to take a moment to examine the history of morality to know with utter certainty that there are no certainties or objective facts that stand the test of time.
Justice is always handed out unevenly; either in mitigation of class, status or circumstance; or restricted due to age, race, and low status or social standing.
That it the world we live in.
Your knowledge re Morality and Ethics is too narrow and shallow.
Repeating your bullshit does not make it more true.
The above confirms your knowledge re morality is too shallow, narrow and dogmatic, no wonder you like images with a very thick skull.
As usual you will cry 'F/Off' every time you are cornered without any substance to counter.
I don't give a damn with your infantile crying, I'll response whenever there is an opportunity for me to refresh my knowledge on the relevant subject.

The first thing we need to define 'what is morality'.
Morality is the eliminating of 'evil' to enable its corresponding 'good'.
What is evil is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.
What are evil [immoral] acts and thoughts are exhaustive with no ambiguities and exceptions.

One immoral element is dying prematurely and not naturally.
Therefore the trend of increasing life span is a moral progress.

Increasing the average life-span could lead to increase in population which is moral but if there is overpopulation, then it many be detrimental to the well being of humanity, thus in this case it would be immoral.
In this case, humanity must take the moral steps to ensure there is no over-population as a matter of moral principles. [in the future, not now].

Slavery is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and there is a trend of reduction [statistics] is Chattel Slavery to the extent that it is banned legally [politics] in all countries. Whilst it is political move, overall it due to the inherent moral impulse within all humans.
Thus there is moral progress [statistically] with Chattel Slavery.
There are other forms of slavery at present, but because there is an inherent moral function with all humans [active in different degrees] [statistics -normal curve], there is pressure from individuals and NGOs urging politicians to deal with this problem.
That there are pressure to deal with all forms of slavery as opposed in indifference as in the past is a sign of moral progress.

Generally, all humans are embedded in their DNA with a moral function as adapted from evolution.
As with evolution, the moral function within all humans are unfolding and being activated very slowly at present. This is why the majority of humans at present are more aligned with 'evil' tendencies than moral tendencies.

This is why there is a need to recognize this inherent moral functions as existing objectively [Moral Realism] so that humanity can understand its mechanisms more precisely and expedite its activity to facilitate a greater speed of moral progress on average [statistics].

Therefore moral realism prevails regardless of your denials.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9556
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:40 am
Harbal wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:49 am Analogy, different people may disagree on how to avoid diabetes, on what food to avoid and to eat, but the underlying fact that intake of excessive glucose through various sources is a metabolic problem to health is inherent to all humans, i.e. objective.
That isn't analogous to a disagreement on a moral issue.
Why not?
What is your definition of morality? See my post below.

There is an inherent moral function and drive in ALL humans just like the function to breathe, eat, fuck, be safe, etc.
Humans may have all sort of sexual tendencies Hetero .. [LBGTQ...] or even asexual [thus disagreements], but there is no denying they are embedded with the neural correlates of the sexual drive. In the case of asexual, the neural correlates are damaged.
So there is objectivity [generic sexual drive] within relativity [sexual tendencies].

The human metabolic function is also controlled by an main metabolic function that generate the hunger drive which exists in ALL humans.
How one satisfy the hunger drive [objective] is relative [food preferences]. Some vegan will disagree with [may evil kill those who eat meat] and vice versa.

There is an inherent moral drive and function in ALL humans [with different degree of activeness] but there are different ways thus disagreements in how to deal with moral issues.
Even the moral nihilists will have the moral correlates in their brain, except their are damage or dormant.

So how is the above examples not analogous to the moral functions in the brain of ALL human beings?
Some diets will help to avoid diabetes, and some diets will make diabetes more likely. That is a fact, and independent of individual opinion. If you have an opinion about diet in relation to diabetes, you could be right or wrong (correct or incorrect). A moral opinion, however, cannot be right or wrong, it can only ever be a matter of opinion.

A moral opinion could be right or wrong according to a particular value system, but value systems are arbitrary, and based on things like tradition and sentiment, and are also subject to change. Value systems are about emotional preference, rather than utility, and are not "frameworks and systems of knowledge".
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12356
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Harbal wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 3:40 am
Harbal wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:11 am
That isn't analogous to a disagreement on a moral issue.
Why not?
What is your definition of morality? See my post below.

There is an inherent moral function and drive in ALL humans just like the function to breathe, eat, fuck, be safe, etc.
Humans may have all sort of sexual tendencies Hetero .. [LBGTQ...] or even asexual [thus disagreements], but there is no denying they are embedded with the neural correlates of the sexual drive. In the case of asexual, the neural correlates are damaged.
So there is objectivity [generic sexual drive] within relativity [sexual tendencies].

The human metabolic function is also controlled by an main metabolic function that generate the hunger drive which exists in ALL humans.
How one satisfy the hunger drive [objective] is relative [food preferences]. Some vegan will disagree with [may evil kill those who eat meat] and vice versa.

There is an inherent moral drive and function in ALL humans [with different degree of activeness] but there are different ways thus disagreements in how to deal with moral issues.
Even the moral nihilists will have the moral correlates in their brain, except their are damage or dormant.

So how is the above examples not analogous to the moral functions in the brain of ALL human beings?
Some diets will help to avoid diabetes, and some diets will make diabetes more likely. That is a fact, and independent of individual opinion. If you have an opinion about diet in relation to diabetes, you could be right or wrong (correct or incorrect). A moral opinion, however, cannot be right or wrong, it can only ever be a matter of opinion.

A moral opinion could be right or wrong according to a particular value system, but value systems are arbitrary, and based on things like tradition and sentiment, and are also subject to change. Value systems are about emotional preference, rather than utility, and are not "frameworks and systems of knowledge".
I agree, any opinion by a subject whether moral or otherwise cannot be a fact.
If anyone make a moral opinion, it is not a moral fact.

Some diets will make diabetes more likely because of metabolic facts of the physical conditions, i.e. too much glucose that the body [liver, pancreas, cells, etc.] cannot handle.

I have written "million-times" in this section what is the moral fact is the physical neurons and the neural correlates that has moral potentials.
It is the physical thing not a matter of opinions.

That why you are not going out to kill humans arbitrary now is because of moral neurons that prevent you to do so. It is true or false whether there are such neurons pre-existing in your brain.
You can be made to kill humans [moral element] if you are brainwashed by a cult or other evil people. It is like turning a switch by changing the neural connections in your brain.
These moral elements and potentials are the physical moral facts.

If you ever toy with the idea to kill another human or think killing humans is permissible or not, that is a moral opinion, not a moral fact.

What is the moral fact is the actual set of physical neurons [biological] that are preventing you from killing humans at the present.
Thus the ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans [moral fact] is not a moral opinion but the actual physical neurons maintaining that inhibited state preventing you from killing another human.
This ought-not-ness-to-kill-humans are biological facts [neurons] and they are moral facts when considered within a moral FSK.

It is the same with the conditions related to diabetes which are first and foremost biological and chemistry facts within the scientific FSK, but they they are medical facts when dealt within the medical-FSK.

All the moral matters are initially biology, chemistry and physics, just like the medical FSK, we need a moral FSK to deal with them as moral facts to increase efficiency.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Moral Disagreements Support Moral Realism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 9:42 am That why you are not going out to kill humans arbitrary now is because of moral neurons that prevent you to do so. It is true or false whether there are such neurons pre-existing in your brain.
You can be made to kill humans [moral element] if you are brainwashed by a cult or other evil people. It is like turning a switch by changing the neural connections in your brain.
These moral elements and potentials are the physical moral facts.
So, when you feel like killing, that's only if you are brainwashed.
If you don't kill that's because of you brain.

Even though every culture takes pains to reduce the violence (in most situations) that their children express. Why? because aggression, including the aggression that leads to violence is, well, right there in the brains.

You can be brainwashed to kill. You can be brainwashed to simply accept violence and not respond, even to protect yourself and others.

We have both propensities.

And anyone who has worked in daycare knows that you damn well need culture to stop violence.
And you damn well use culture to help nudge empathy along.

In VA's model non-violence is the default. This is simply not the case.

If this were the case, then he would not be fantasizing about technological interventions and pedagogical intervetions to make us moral. He has said elsewhere that most people are fairly primitive morally compared to future humans.
Post Reply