Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

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: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 7:33 am So philosophical realism only really indirectly matters at all. The central point is that you think people should be moral realists, THAT'S the real goal, and that would be the goal regardless of if people believe in objective reality or not, right?
The issue of Philosophical Realism is critical because it is fundamental to the issue because clinging dogmatically to Philosophical Realism [mind independence] is a threat to Humanity in the future.

Moral Realism is a loose term, so need to be more precise about it.
Theists are moral realists, I am not into that.
Re morality, what is critical is all humans need to accept that Morality is Objective so that there are fixed moral goalposts to guide humanity towards perpetual peace.

What is moral objectivity is conditioned by the credibility and reliability of the human-based moral FSK.
As such, we need a credible and reliable human-based moral FSK that is highly objective, i.e. one which majority of inputs are from the scientific FSK.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 8:22 am Goddit. There are no mind-independent facts. But there are moral facts, such as the existence of an 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans' inhibitor represented by neurons in human brains.

Years of contemplation - and amassing documents and sometimes reading bits of them - and this unutterable tripe is the rotten fruit.

Just as there are no aesthetic facts, but only aesthetic opinions - this is beautiful/ugly - so there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions - this is morally right/wrong. So morality isn't and can't be objective.

And that's why it's completely rational for people to hold diametrically opposed moral opinions, such as: abortion is/is not morally wrong. There is no fact that can settle the matter.

Moral realists and objective are just wrong. The end. (Or is it?)
Strawman and what are you blabbering about?

How did you link the existence of an 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans' inhibitors represented by neurons in human brains to aesthetic opinions?

Note the analogy to 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans' inhibitors;
the ought-ness-to-breathe is represented by neurons in human brains
this is a biological fact.

Similarly 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans' inhibitors is also a biological fact which when inputed into the moral-FSK is a moral fact.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 9:01 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 7:33 am So philosophical realism only really indirectly matters at all. The central point is that you think people should be moral realists, THAT'S the real goal, and that would be the goal regardless of if people believe in objective reality or not, right?
The issue of Philosophical Realism is critical because it is fundamental to the issue because clinging dogmatically to Philosophical Realism [mind independence] is a threat to Humanity in the future.

Moral Realism is a loose term, so need to be more precise about it.
Theists are moral realists, I am not into that.
Re morality, what is critical is all humans need to accept that Morality is Objective so that there are fixed moral goalposts to guide humanity towards perpetual peace.

What is moral objectivity is conditioned by the credibility and reliability of the human-based moral FSK.
As such, we need a credible and reliable human-based moral FSK that is highly objective, i.e. one which majority of inputs are from the scientific FSK.
What I'm saying is, if someone agreed with you about moral objectivity and which moral statements are true, you probably wouldn't care much if they also believed in objective reality in general, would you?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 9:01 am
Re morality, what is critical is all humans need to accept that Morality is Objective so that there are fixed moral goalposts to guide humanity towards perpetual peace.
And who gets to decide where the goalposts are, and how will they get everyone else to agree? After all, no two people share the exact same moral values. :?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 9:07 am
Strawman and what are you blabbering about?

How did you link the existence of an 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans' inhibitors represented by neurons in human brains to aesthetic opinions?
Don't neurons in the brain have anything to do with aesthetic opinions? Are my oughtness-not-to-paint-anything-orange inhibitors not represented by neurons in my human brain?
Last edited by Harbal on Tue May 23, 2023 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 9:13 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 9:01 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 7:33 am So philosophical realism only really indirectly matters at all. The central point is that you think people should be moral realists, THAT'S the real goal, and that would be the goal regardless of if people believe in objective reality or not, right?
The issue of Philosophical Realism is critical because it is fundamental to the issue because clinging dogmatically to Philosophical Realism [mind independence] is a threat to Humanity in the future.

Moral Realism is a loose term, so need to be more precise about it.
Theists are moral realists, I am not into that.
Re morality, what is critical is all humans need to accept that Morality is Objective so that there are fixed moral goalposts to guide humanity towards perpetual peace.

What is moral objectivity is conditioned by the credibility and reliability of the human-based moral FSK.
As such, we need a credible and reliable human-based moral FSK that is highly objective, i.e. one which majority of inputs are from the scientific FSK.
What I'm saying is, if someone agreed with you about moral objectivity and which moral statements are true, you probably wouldn't care much if they also believed in objective reality in general, would you?
Note I wrote;
There are two senses of objectivity, i.e. Objective Reality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
i.e.
1. Philosophical Realism [mind-independent] basis of Objective Reality
2. FSK based Objective Reality

If someone agree with my moral objectivity, then, it has to be based on 2. FSK-based objective reality and not 1. Philosophical Realism.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Why do you care? Why does it HAVE to be? Someone can't be moral unless they agree with you in every single way about every philosophical topic? They can't just agree with you that morality is objective, and that their objective answers to moral questions are the same as yours?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 9:23 am Why do you care? Why does it HAVE to be? Someone can't be moral unless they agree with you in every single way about every philosophical topic? They can't just agree with you that morality is objective, and that their objective answers to moral questions are the same as yours?
I am not too sure of your point.

Analogy:
All humans are programmed with a generic hunger drive to eat to facilitate survival.
However when there are plentiful of food, this inherent hunger drive can lead to obesity which is the cause of chronic diseases that lead to premature deaths.
But if anyone were to fully understand the detailed principles and mechanisms of all the processes that generate the hunger drive within the science-biology FSK, they will have greater efficient methods to manage their weight, body composition, thus prevent potential premature deaths.
In this case, there is no need to agree with others based on faith.
The person should test out the theory themselves and convinced themselves that it work.

Btw, what I proposed re morality is not applicable for the present since we cannot activate the inherent moral function immediate but neural rewirings take time which could be within generations.

The point is a person will be more moral competent in the future when they recognize [verified and justified within the science and moral FSK] the objectivity of moral facts within themselves and take the effort to self-develop their moral competence.

On the other hand a moral nihilist or moral relativist/subjectivist will enable whatever good and evil to go one eternally without any attempt to overcome the evil to enable its related good.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Harbal »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 9:48 am
Btw, what I proposed re morality is not applicable for the present since we cannot activate the inherent moral function immediate but neural rewirings take time which could be within generations.
And once we start rewiring people, I wonder how long it will be before somebody decides it would be a great idea to wire us all up so that we desire to work longer and harder for less money. The possibilities are endless. :|
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 9:48 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 9:23 am Why do you care? Why does it HAVE to be? Someone can't be moral unless they agree with you in every single way about every philosophical topic? They can't just agree with you that morality is objective, and that their objective answers to moral questions are the same as yours?
I am not too sure of your point.

Analogy:
All humans are programmed with a generic hunger drive to eat to facilitate survival.
However when there are plentiful of food, this inherent hunger drive can lead to obesity which is the cause of chronic diseases that lead to premature deaths.
But if anyone were to fully understand the detailed principles and mechanisms of all the processes that generate the hunger drive within the science-biology FSK, they will have greater efficient methods to manage their weight, body composition, thus prevent potential premature deaths.
In this case, there is no need to agree with others based on faith.
The person should test out the theory themselves and convinced themselves that it work.

Btw, what I proposed re morality is not applicable for the present since we cannot activate the inherent moral function immediate but neural rewirings take time which could be within generations.

The point is a person will be more moral competent in the future when they recognize [verified and justified within the science and moral FSK] the objectivity of moral facts within themselves and take the effort to self-develop their moral competence.

On the other hand a moral nihilist or moral relativist/subjectivist will enable whatever good and evil to go one eternally without any attempt to overcome the evil to enable its related good.
None of that seems to answer the question about why you care
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 10:01 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 9:48 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 9:23 am Why do you care? Why does it HAVE to be? Someone can't be moral unless they agree with you in every single way about every philosophical topic? They can't just agree with you that morality is objective, and that their objective answers to moral questions are the same as yours?
I am not too sure of your point.

Analogy:
All humans are programmed with a generic hunger drive to eat to facilitate survival.
However when there are plentiful of food, this inherent hunger drive can lead to obesity which is the cause of chronic diseases that lead to premature deaths.
But if anyone were to fully understand the detailed principles and mechanisms of all the processes that generate the hunger drive within the science-biology FSK, they will have greater efficient methods to manage their weight, body composition, thus prevent potential premature deaths.
In this case, there is no need to agree with others based on faith.
The person should test out the theory themselves and convinced themselves that it work.

Btw, what I proposed re morality is not applicable for the present since we cannot activate the inherent moral function immediate but neural rewirings take time which could be within generations.

The point is a person will be more moral competent in the future when they recognize [verified and justified within the science and moral FSK] the objectivity of moral facts within themselves and take the effort to self-develop their moral competence.

On the other hand a moral nihilist or moral relativist/subjectivist will enable whatever good and evil to go one eternally without any attempt to overcome the evil to enable its related good.
None of that seems to answer the question about why you care
Why I care?

I am in alignment with the vision of philosophy for humanity [hardwired in the brain], i.e.

1. What can I know - Epistemology
2. What can I do - Morality
3. What can I hope for? Perpetual Peace

Why I care is because of being naturally driven for 3 even I know it is not possible within the current generation.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 10:01 am None of that seems to answer the question about why you care
If you look at his response to your repeat of the question:
1) he seems to have forgotten the context. This leads him to repeat one of his positions and fails to answer the question.
2) you could rephrase the question: must someone be an antirealist for you to consider them an ally in relation to morals? Can you align with people who are realists, but who also think, like you do, that reducing murder and/or being more empathetic are good goals? Or do you consider them threats to humanity only?
3) His response to you above is very confused, even if it was actually answering the question you asked.
Why I care?

I am in alignment with the vision of philosophy for humanity [hardwired in the brain], i.e.

1. What can I know - Epistemology
2. What can I do - Morality
3. What can I hope for? Perpetual Peace

Why I care is because of being naturally driven for 3 even I know it is not possible within the current generation.
He is aligned with the vision of humanity [hardwired in the brain]
and they he has a list where only number three could be considered a vision. He values Perpetual Peace.
1 and 2 are just categories. They are not parts of a vision. An epistemology with specific characteristics could be. A morality with specific characteristics could be. But one and two don't make any sense after "i.e"

He is naturally driven for 3. This is also an odd response. You ask why he cares. He answers that he is naturally driven. It is as if it is not part of any philosophy. He's answering as if you asked him Why do you like blue cheese?

Now it can be a great admission. He could be saying 'the root of my vision and valuing perpetual peace is something innate. I do think this is a good idea, I am just acknowledging that it is a part of who I am.


But then it should be incredibly easy to align with realists who share such a goal and consider it objectively good.


So I want to sum this up on two main points because I think they explain a lot about communication with VA:

A. He is not good at undertanding points IN CONTEXT. So, you never really know for sure what he is arguing against, in a specific set of points, or even if it connects to what it seems to be responding to.
B. There is something chaotic in the communication. It's the work of a bricoleur. He takes things that may or may not fit together, as if he is in a hurry and we're left with something that ends up being partially nonsensical. I am not saying his beliefs are nonsensical, but given the nature of his writing and the way he jams things together, we get an impression of his main point, but lots of internal tensions and countermessages and things that are hard to interpret.

Couple these two patterns and communication is very convoluted with VA. Even in this short non-response to your twice-asked question dozens of confusions are created. I think that may be more important that any differences in position someone communicating with VA may have.

And that's not even getting at his goal of Perpetual Peace, which in English actually sounds quite a bit like death, or heaven.

But it comes from Kant's book of the same name and it's more or less a set of political positions.

The irony is that many realists, apropos your question, have believed in this and tried to implement it.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 11:16 am 2) you could rephrase the question: must someone be an antirealist for you to consider them an ally in relation to morals? Can you align with people who are realists, but who also think, like you do, that reducing murder and/or being more empathetic are good goals? Or do you consider them threats to humanity only?
Fantastic paraphrasing, probably clearer than how I expressed it.

Although, having read my posts again, I do think I was pretty clear to begin with...
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6656
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 11:30 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 11:16 am 2) you could rephrase the question: must someone be an antirealist for you to consider them an ally in relation to morals? Can you align with people who are realists, but who also think, like you do, that reducing murder and/or being more empathetic are good goals? Or do you consider them threats to humanity only?
Fantastic paraphrasing, probably clearer than how I expressed it.

Although, having read my posts again, I do think I was pretty clear to begin with...
Oh yes, you were clear. I didn't mean it as criticism. Just thinking of ways to get the idea across.

And it hits me that your earlier comparison to iambiguous' position on objectivists is more spot on than I realized.

Iambigious has objectivists as the problem and if this is challenged in any way he will then mention bad objectivists (not getting the irony) like Hitler or the Taliban.

Here VA sees realists as undermining humanity and potentially a threat to all of it, while not seeming to notice that many realists are also moral realists and would share goals with him.

And of course antirealists are not compelled to be moral realists. YOu could easily believe there is no mind independent reality AND be a moral relativist or Moral anti-realist or take a stand against objective moral facts.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 11:42 am And of course antirealists are not compelled to be moral realists. YOu could easily believe there is no mind independent reality AND that be a moral relativist or Moral anti-realist or take a stand against objective moral facts.
Yes, this is something I thought but didn't express as well. Why would convincing the world of anti realism then result in a world full of moral realists? Are most anti realists moral realists? I suspect not...
Post Reply