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

Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Magnus Anderson »

Harbal wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 1:18 pmHow is, "A man ought to eat healthy food", a moral statement? He only ought to eat healthy food if he wants to be healthy, which is a practical health issue, not a moral one. A man ought not to eat meat if he believes the killing of animals is morally wrong, would be a statement about morality,
You're using the word in the modern, narrow, sense. That's fine, it's just not how I'm using it.

Note that each person has something called "the highest goal" the attainment of which they are pursuing with every decision they make throught their entire lives. As such, to say "You ought to do X" is to say "Doing X will bring you closer to attaining your higher goal than doing something else". That applies to statements such as "You ought not to eat meat" just as well.
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: Wed May 24, 2023 10:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 10:47 am Re the above science is anti-philosophical realism. [you may dispute this].
What "above science" is anti philosophical realism?
Note this quote I included earlier;
With reference to the above, science is claimed to be anti-philosophical realism; you may not agree with this, but there is such a claim.
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: Wed May 24, 2023 10:57 am Philosophical realists can't believe in science-based objective morality, according to you, because some aspect of science is, according to you, against philosophical realism.

Science based morality is, according to you, based on scientific facts like "mirror neurons are an in-built genetically encoded feature of humans" - which, again, philosophical realists can agree with, there's nothing I know of stopping a philosophical realist from agreeing with you about the existence of these neurons or what they imply about objective morality.

The only thing I've seen from you is that some science is anti philosophical realism, and therefore... what? No philosophical realist can believe anything based in science at all?

Despite the fact that most scientists are apparently philosophical realists?
Philosophical realists do believe in science but they insist scientific conclusions are not facts per se but rather science discover those facts which exist independent of the human mind.
We have mentioned this point, e.g. Einstein was a philosophical realist, so is Sean Carroll and many others.

As philosophical realists, these scientists do not believe humans has a role in contributing to what is claimed as scientific facts, i.e. human-based scientific FSK conditioned facts.
This is despite the actual observer's effect imputed in all scientific facts which has to be conditioned to the science-FSK.

So, philosophical realists [if they are scientists] do believe there are mirror neurons as confirmed from the science-biology-FSK. But they believe the existence of mirror-neurons has nothing to do with humans' participation in those emerging epistemology [conclusions] at all.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 12:58 pm There are people who arr philosophical realists AND moral realists at the same time.
I am an example.
I don't agree with Peter Holmes's assertion that there are no moral facts, that there are only moral opinions. That sort of thing is very easy to disprove.
Yes, Peter Holmes' assertion are mystical, illusory, nonsensical, meaningless, empty and groundless.
I have asked Peter Holmes to explain his 'what is fact' i.e. a feature of reality, that is just-is, being so, that is the case, BUT "it is just-is WHAT'? being WHAT? that is WHAT? that is beyond the empirical. He have not been able to explain it clearly.
Let us first define the word "morality".
The word "morality" means "a set of laws that a person, a group of people or everyone should follow in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal".
It is obvious "morality" is within human nature which is why the theme of 'morality' is such a prevalent topic and ethics [morality] is one of the main subject of philosophy.

Human nature is a fact [FSK].
Morality is part and parcel of human nature
Therefore, morality is a fact [FSK].

Thus, morality has to be defined based on its part of human nature.

"their highest goal" :shock:
whose? the Buddha's, Ghandi's it can also be Hitler's, evil-laden Islam's, Pol Pot; there is no reason [grounds] for you [and others] to insist who is right or who is wrong.

Morality is not about what is right or what is wrong; morality is not about opinions, beliefs and judgments of individuals or groups.

I defined morality as 'the elimination of evil to enable its related good' to facilitate the well-being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.
What is evil must be defined and acts and thoughts of what is evil must be represented in an exhaustive list.
There are different types of morality. For example, there is social morality. Social morality pertains to how we ought to act towards other people. But not all morality is social. An example of a moral statement that is not social is "A man ought to eat healthy food". How many of you would say the truth value of that statement is up to one's wishes? None, I suppose. If that's the case, then you're moral realists -- at least when it comes to this particular moral statement ( or this particular type of morality. )
There is only universal morality within ALL humans.
The diversity surrounding 'morality' are merely is variations of expressions to achieve moral goals.
Morality can also be divided into local and universal morality. Local morality is a type of morality that applies to a single individual or a group of people but not to everyone. Universal morality is a type of morality that applies to everyone.

Moral universalism is the idea that some or all moral principles are universal, i.e. applicable to everyone. It's often confused with moral realism. Personally, I believe there are universal moral principles but I disagree that all moral principles are universal.
Note,
ALL humans ought to breathe!
What is universal with this human nature is the universal neural correlates or algorithm in the brain and body represented by physical neurons, genes, DNA, sub-atomic particles.
SOME may deliberate choose not breathe and commit suicide, but there is no denying the above physical elements driving human oughtness to breathe exist in their brain and body; the difference, they are not working as expected due to damage to the algorithm.

So, what is critical is not so much of moral principles, but rather the universal physical neural correlates that drive the moral principles.
The author of this thread appeals to be claiming that morality is a set of fixed beliefs we are born with and that the truth value of any moral proposition is determined by whether or not it is one of these fixed moral beliefs we are born with. It's reminiscent of innate conscience theory where what's good and what's bad isn't determined by the consequences of one's actions and one's highest goal but by a fixed mechanism known as "conscience" that we're all born with and that we all carry within ourselves but that we may or may not obey.
I absolutely disagree with that.
Note it is not the moral beliefs and principles that is critical but the neural correlates that drive the moral principles and beliefs.

All facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a human based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].

There are a lot of alternative consideration in relating 'conscience to morality'. i.e. having the conscience to avoid evil acts like killing, rape, violence, torture, etc.
Let say, 'conscience' is an element of the moral FSK, thus a moral fact.
Let say, 'conscience' is an innate human function as part of human nature.
In this case, surely, what drive conscience in humans must be represented by its corresponding universal neural correlates in the brain and body of all humans.

That some humans go against and disobey their conscience or 'do not have a conscience' do not obviate the fact that they have factual and real corresponding universal neural correlates in the brain and body of all humans; in this case, it is just that their neural correlates for conscience are not working due to under-development or damage as with psychopaths and other mental cases.

My point is;
as with conscience, there are many other moral elements of the inherent moral functions which exist factually [FSKed] in ALL humans but are of different activeness or working order in different people due to various reasons.

When humanity is able to be identify the precise neuro-mechanisms of the inherent conscience within ALL humans in the future [not now], then, humanity will have the opportunity to increase the present average moral quotient [MQ] of say 100 in 2023 to 2000 in 2100 or later.

Since there are physical moral facts, so, morality is Objective [FSK-ed].
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: Wed May 24, 2023 1:20 pm
Harbal wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 1:18 pm
Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 12:58 pm
There are different types of morality. For example, there is social morality. Social morality pertains to how we ought to act towards other people. But not all morality is social. An example of a moral statement that is not social is "A man ought to eat healthy food". How many of you would say the truth value of that statement is up to one's wishes? None, I suppose. If that's the case, then you're moral realists -- at least when it comes to this particular moral statement ( or this particular type of morality. )
How is, "A man ought to eat healthy food", a moral statement?
Yeah this definitely doesn't match what I think of as morality. Morality for me is exclusively a social issue
The oughtness "A man ought to eat healthy food".
can be a moral statement but it is a quite a distance within the moral continuum from "All humans ought not to kill humans".
I would not bank too much on such a moral element.

As I had defined morality is
'elimination of evil acts or thoughts to enable its related good to facilitate the well-being of the individuals and that of humanity.

Evil acts or thoughts [in a continuum] are those that are net-negative to the well-being of the individuals and that of humanity.

In the above The oughtness "A man ought to eat healthy food" has to be detailed precisely in terms of what is unhealthy/healthy food, which in this case, are food that are likely to lead to premature death.
Eating unhealthy food [as defined] is like a case of ignorant slow suicide and committing suicide is an evil act to one self and that of humanity.
So, The oughtness "A man ought to eat healthy food" is a moral principle and a moral fact within a credible and reliable moral FSK; this is within the extreme say 10 percentile within the moral fact continuum.
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: Wed May 24, 2023 11:27 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 11:22 am
He's treating the entire planet as an arena in his fight with Peter Holmes. Peter Holmes is a moral antirealist and an ontological realist.
For some reason it never occurred to me that this is what's going on. Similar to what goes on in the "free will" conversation with Wizard: Wizard talks to one determinist who says something, and Wizard concludes "all determinists think this particular thing".

Is that what's happening here with philosophical realism? One philosophical realist said something VA disagreed with, and now that means that all philosophical realists think the same thing?
I am not that stupid to commit the hasty generalization fallacy.

The current main theme of this Ethical Section is 'Whether the is Objective Morality'
note the 539 pages thread re What could make morality objective? raised by Peter Holmes.

The above thread is grounded on Philosophical Realism [mind or human independence]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I have exploited that long thread to increase my knowledge database on Ethics & Morality while refreshing other related knowledge.
As such it is only natural I make references to Peter Holmes and those who agree with him grounded on Philosophical Realism.

I have already stated, even if anyone agree with me on certain moral issues, e.g. "Thou Shall Not Kill", but as long it is grounded on Philosophical Realism, I cannot agree with it in the ultimate sense in terms of the future of humanity. [OP]

I don't generalize, but rather have always deal with it on a case by case basis where necessary.

Peter Holmes is more of anti-Moral-Objectivist, a moral relativist, an anti-moral-realist [no independent moral facts], a Philosophical Realist within Analytic Ordinary Language Philosophy.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 4:41 am I am not that stupid to commit the hasty generalization fallacy.
Actually he is. In the OP it is implicit. In a later post entirely explicit.
I don't generalize, but rather have always deal with it on a case by case basis where necessary.
Because humans are interdependent with reality [e.g. co-creators], such a realization will enable the majority of humans to take responsibility for the likely threats they could be contributing to the existence of humanity.
That's from the OP.
What he's saying here is that antirealists realize that they cocreate reality so they will take responsibility for likely threats they could be contributing to the existence of humanity.

The implicit claim, which is absurd, is that realists are less likely to do this.

Because they see reality as mind independent. So, there's the hasty generalization fallacy.

IOW the OP openly claims that philosophical realism is a threat. Implicitly it aims at realists.

After the OP VA says....
2. Most* philosophical realists insist all of morality is subjective or relative, i.e. not mind-independent. * some are moral nihilists.
This is false. Most realists are moral realists also. Most people in the world are moral realists and believe in objective moral facts.

He is talking out of his ass.
A hasty generalization fallacy is a claim made on the basis of insufficient evidence. Instead of looking into examples and evidence that are much more in line with the typical or average situation, you draw a conclusion about a large population using a small, unrepresentative sample.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 2:45 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 10:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 10:47 am Re the above science is anti-philosophical realism. [you may dispute this].
What "above science" is anti philosophical realism?
Note this quote I included earlier;
With reference to the above, science is claimed to be anti-philosophical realism; you may not agree with this, but there is such a claim.
Sorry, do you think that that quote is directly saying science is anti realism? This quote:
Are you interpreting that somehow as saying "science is claimed to be anti-philosophical realism"?
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: Thu May 25, 2023 6:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 2:45 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 10:49 am

What "above science" is anti philosophical realism?
Note this quote I included earlier;
With reference to the above, science is claimed to be anti-philosophical realism; you may not agree with this, but there is such a claim.
Sorry, do you think that that quote is directly saying science is anti realism? This quote:
Are you interpreting that somehow as saying "science is claimed to be anti-philosophical realism"?
In a sense, yes.

As I had always claimed,
all facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity [scientific or otherwise] are conditioned upon a human-based FSK, thus it is anti-philosophical realism.

Generally, science merely ASSUMED there is something objective out there awaiting discovery or for some they are independent God's creations, e.g. as with Newton and other scientists who are theists and philosophical realists.

Modern scientists who are philosophical realists are generally very humble [not Einstein though -God do not play dice] in not being dogmatic or certain there exists an independent objective out there awaiting discovery.

In fact, scientist do not have to give a damn with a mind-independent objective reality out there, but rather merely banked on and get going what their empirical evidences can support via the scientific FSK [methods, etc.].

The assumption is driven by psychology & evolutionary forces and not science per se.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 7:16 am
Are you interpreting that somehow as saying "science is claimed to be anti-philosophical realism"?
In a sense, yes.

That is not what that text says.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 7:26 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 7:16 am
Are you interpreting that somehow as saying "science is claimed to be anti-philosophical realism"?
In a sense, yes.

That is not what that text says.
Maybe you need to read it better?
Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
One kind of metaphysical anti-realism maintains a skepticism about the physical world, arguing either: 1) that nothing exists outside the mind, or 2) that we would have no access to a mind-independent reality, even if it exists
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
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: Thu May 25, 2023 3:50 am
Morality is not about what is right or what is wrong; morality is not about opinions, beliefs and judgments of individuals or groups.
But that is exactly what morality is considered to be. That is the generally accepted definition of morality. :?
I defined morality as 'the elimination of evil to enable its related good' to facilitate the well-being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.
What is evil must be defined and acts and thoughts of what is evil must be represented in an exhaustive list.
No, that is not a definition of morality. I don't know if there is a term, or name, for your above description, but you can't just steal "morality"; that term is already spoken for.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Iwannaplato »

Harbal wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 9:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 3:50 am
Morality is not about what is right or what is wrong; morality is not about opinions, beliefs and judgments of individuals or groups.
But that is exactly what morality is considered to be. That is the generally accepted definition of morality. :?
I defined morality as 'the elimination of evil to enable its related good' to facilitate the well-being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.
What is evil must be defined and acts and thoughts of what is evil must be represented in an exhaustive list.
No, that is not a definition of morality. I don't know if there is a term, or name, for your above description, but you can't just steal "morality"; that term is already spoken for.
I'm surprised you found that coherent enough to disagree.
1) Morality is not about what is right or wrong.
2) Morality is the elimination of evil. Evil is defined by acts and thoughts of what is evil.

This seems to be saying that wrong and evil are not the same, but this is not clarified. Evil is defined using the word 'evil'.

I don't have any idea what he means. It seems self-contradictory + useless, but who knows?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Harbal »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 9:13 am
Harbal wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 9:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 3:50 am
Morality is not about what is right or what is wrong; morality is not about opinions, beliefs and judgments of individuals or groups.
But that is exactly what morality is considered to be. That is the generally accepted definition of morality. :?
I defined morality as 'the elimination of evil to enable its related good' to facilitate the well-being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.
What is evil must be defined and acts and thoughts of what is evil must be represented in an exhaustive list.
No, that is not a definition of morality. I don't know if there is a term, or name, for your above description, but you can't just steal "morality"; that term is already spoken for.
I'm surprised you found that coherent enough to disagree.
Actually, it is funny you should say that. When I looked at what he had written, I was completely lost for words for a good fifteen minutes. What I finally came up with was the best I could do. :)
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 7:16 am
Are you interpreting that somehow as saying "science is claimed to be anti-philosophical realism"?
In a sense, yes.

That is not what that text says.
I just want to make sure you understand that, va. The quote does not say that. I can help you interpret that text more correctly if you don't already understand why it doesn't say that.
Post Reply