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 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...
I stated earlier I was not too sure of your point and I think this is a reasonable point in any discussion in attempting to find out what the other really intended to convey.
It is very unprofessional to blame the reader but rather the onus is on the questioner to present his question in a way the other party can understand easily.

If you think I have not answered your original question, can you present again in a more clearer manner.

Btw, there are many types of realism and my reference to realism in this discussion is specific to Philosophical Realism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

My emphasis on 'Objectivity' of the FSK kind not of Philosophical Realism.

In addition, a realist in one perspective ["wearing a hat"] may be an anti-realist in another perspective [when changed to another 'hat'].
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Agent Smith »

Good post OP! (We - me) have a choice! As regards philosophical realism my fallacy-meter gives a reading, but good/bad luck, your solution does too and therein, mon ami, lies the rub. That outta the way, what's a cup doing in the middle of the Sahara? 🤔
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 4:26 am
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...
I stated earlier I was not too sure of your point and I think this is a reasonable point in any discussion in attempting to find out what the other really intended to convey.
It is very unprofessional to blame the reader but rather the onus is on the questioner to present his question in a way the other party can understand easily.

If you think I have not answered your original question, can you present again in a more clearer manner.

Btw, there are many types of realism and my reference to realism in this discussion is specific to Philosophical Realism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

My emphasis on 'Objectivity' of the FSK kind not of Philosophical Realism.

In addition, a realist in one perspective ["wearing a hat"] may be an anti-realist in another perspective [when changed to another 'hat'].
Why are you asking me to reword it? I've worded it myself in 2 different ways, both of which are pretty clear, and iwannaplato has worded it again in yet a new and clear way.

Your goal seems to be for everyone to agree with you about objective morality. That's what you're trying to achieve. There are plenty of philosophical realists who believe in objective morality. I would expect you to be quite happy with those people, since they have the quality you're looking for. But no, you say "If someone agree with my moral objectivity, then, it has to be based on 2. FSK-based objective reality and not 1. Philosophical Realism."

Why? Why would someone who agrees with you that morality is objective, and that all the objective moral rules are the same as the ones you think, but it's also a philosophical realist, not be "an ally" towards your moral goal, as iwannaplato put it?
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 8:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 4:26 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 11:30 am

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...
I stated earlier I was not too sure of your point and I think this is a reasonable point in any discussion in attempting to find out what the other really intended to convey.
It is very unprofessional to blame the reader but rather the onus is on the questioner to present his question in a way the other party can understand easily.

If you think I have not answered your original question, can you present again in a more clearer manner.

Btw, there are many types of realism and my reference to realism in this discussion is specific to Philosophical Realism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

My emphasis on 'Objectivity' of the FSK kind not of Philosophical Realism.

In addition, a realist in one perspective ["wearing a hat"] may be an anti-realist in another perspective [when changed to another 'hat'].
Why are you asking me to reword it? I've worded it myself in 2 different ways, both of which are pretty clear, and iwannaplato has worded it again in yet a new and clear way.
For the sake of communication, it would be effective to ensure both parties understand the point. It is pointless to seek blame on this matter.
Your goal seems to be for everyone to agree with you about objective morality. That's what you're trying to achieve.
On this issue, yes, but it has to be on the same grounds.
There are plenty of philosophical realists who believe in objective morality. I would expect you to be quite happy with those people, since they have the quality you're looking for.
But no, you say "If someone agree with my moral objectivity, then, it has to be based on 2. FSK-based objective reality and not 1. Philosophical Realism."
Yes, anyone who agree with my type of objective morality has to be firstly of the FSK-based objectivity not philosophical realist based objective morality.

But there is another criteria of agreement.
FSK-based objectivity comes in different degrees say 0.1/100 to 99.9/100.
All facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
Roughly I will not agree with the claimed-moral facts which has say <50/100 degrees of objectivity.
In this case we have will have to consider each claim of moral fact.
Why? Why would someone who agrees with you that morality is objective, and that all the objective moral rules are the same as the ones you think, but it's also a philosophical realist, not be "an ally" towards your moral goal, as iwannaplato put it?
A philosophical realist adopts a mind-independent stance on facts.
As such, if a philosophical realist agrees there are objective moral facts, the believe such moral facts exist independent of the human mind, i.e. this is like Plato Ideals which exist independent of the human mind or human conditions.

Say a philosophical realist believes 'no human ought to kill humans' as a moral fact, but his sort of belief is merely speculative and not based on a science-biology-moral FSK like mine.
This is something like theists [also philosophical realists] who believe 'Thou Shalt not Kill' which is grounded upon a command from God.

In other cases, a philosophical realist may agree 'thou shall not kill humans' based on their intuitive feel.

On the other hand when I believe the objective moral fact 'oughtness-not-kill-humans' it is based on the science-biology-moral FSK which can be verified and justified via science-biology FSK.

So, while their moral goals align with mine, their grounding on these moral goals are different, the degrees of objectivity differ and thus not effective towards the moral progress for humanity.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 9:15 am
Say a philosophical realist believes 'no human ought to kill humans' as a moral fact, but his sort of belief is merely speculative and not based on a science-biology-moral FSK like mine.
Says who? Why couldn't a philosophical realist believe in objective morality based on science like you? Philosophical realists don't believe in mirror neurons?

To the contrary, I think philosophical realists believe in mirror neurons more than you do.
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 9:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 9:15 am
Say a philosophical realist believes 'no human ought to kill humans' as a moral fact, but his sort of belief is merely speculative and not based on a science-biology-moral FSK like mine.
Says who? Why couldn't a philosophical realist believe in objective morality based on science like you? Philosophical realists don't believe in mirror neurons?

To the contrary, I think philosophical realists believe in mirror neurons more than you do.
Note this;
Philosophical Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[8] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.
Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Re the above science is anti-philosophical realism. [you may dispute this].

Philosophical realists believe the moon exists whether there are humans or not.
As such, philosophical realists believe mirror neurons exist regardless whether there are humans or not, perhaps in higher primates for example.

On the contrary,
Anti-philosophical realists [Kantian] believe all facts, truths, knowledge and objective are conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which [at present] the science-FSK is the most credible and reliable, thus has the highest degree of objectivity.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

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?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

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?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Iwannaplato »

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.
Just a thought. We can keep this simple. Can a philosophical realist believe that humans have mirror neurons AND that increasing empathy for others would be beneficial in reducing violence?

Yes.

There is nothing in philosophical realism that prevents someone from believing that reducting violence is good.
There is nothing in philosophical realism that prevents someone from using the existence of mirror neurons to draw this conclusion.


Further there are dozens of other ways to reach very similar conclusions and be a philosohical realist.

I would suggest not getting distracted by discussions of mind independent reality. They don't matter in the least in regard to being an ally in trying to get nations, people, etc., to treat each other with greater respect.

And most philosophical realists believe in objective moral facts.

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.

So, VA blames anyone in the latter category for potentially bringing down humanity.

This is a daddy issue writ large.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

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?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 11:27 am 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".
Yes, Wizards new thread is an absurd, even for him, binary categorization of humans into two camps. Without the least understanding of how people might vary wildly in the categories he brings up.

The parallels he draws are floppy. Manifest Destiny and determininsm for example.
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?
And are a threat to humanity. Even though they may well be allies on all sorts of practical, political, educational, parenting issues that could bring about VA's hoped for Perpetual Peace.

Like to make the world a better place and also to not risk civilization you have believe there is no mind independent reality, which, in the end is a rather esoteric philosophical position, and I say that even though I am, generally a philosophical antirealist.

But some of my best friends are realists, LOL.
Magnus Anderson
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Magnus Anderson »

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 assetion that there are no moral facts, that there are only moral opinions. That sort of thing is very easy to disprove.

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".

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. )

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.

The author of this thread appeats 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.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Iwannaplato »

Magnus Anderson wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 12:58 pm There are people who arr philosophical realists AND moral realists at the same time.
Yes, it's the odd blind spot in VA's position. And there are philosophical antirealists who would disagree with VA about morals. His whole implicit OP thesis in fairly nuts.
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 »

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? 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,
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2573
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity

Post by Flannel Jesus »

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
Post Reply