moral realism? don't think so, morals are agreed to at the human level. in the case of morals no one is an island, it takes two or more to be moral or immoral which would be according to what is agreed to. the reality is morals are relative to the agreed. moral realism doesn't seem to apply.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:53 am Given there is no absolute 100% certainty.
Here are the arguments from Andrew D. Chapman on "Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True"
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo6OaOzuyLM
- "In this lecture, I prove that moral realism is almost certainly true.
After looking at two bad arguments against moral realism's truth and showing why these are bad arguments,
I look at seven good arguments for moral realism's truth and show why these are good arguments."Agree/Disagree?Moral or ethical realism is the philosophical position that there are at least some objective moral or ethical facts. Moral or ethical facts are facts about what is right, wrong, good, bad, better, worse, fair, unfair, just, unjust, etc. Another way to say all of this is that Moral or ethical realism is the position that there are at least some objective facts about what matters, period.
In this lecture, I prove that moral realism is almost certainly true. After looking at two bad arguments against moral realism's truth and showing why these are bad arguments, I look at seven good arguments for moral realism's truth and show why these are good arguments.
Does this mean that it is impossible for moral realism to be false? No. What it does mean is that we ought to believe that moral realism is true because the available evidence shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that moral realism is true.
Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
-
- Posts: 12670
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
You have to widen your perspective to understand what is morality-proper to what is inherent in ALL humans, i.e. human nature.DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:46 pmmoral realism? don't think so, morals are agreed to at the human level. in the case of morals no one is an island, it takes two or more to be moral or immoral which would be according to what is agreed to. the reality is morals are relative to the agreed. moral realism doesn't seem to apply.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:53 am Given there is no absolute 100% certainty.
Here are the arguments from Andrew D. Chapman on "Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True"
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo6OaOzuyLM
- "In this lecture, I prove that moral realism is almost certainly true.
After looking at two bad arguments against moral realism's truth and showing why these are bad arguments,
I look at seven good arguments for moral realism's truth and show why these are good arguments."Agree/Disagree?Moral or ethical realism is the philosophical position that there are at least some objective moral or ethical facts. Moral or ethical facts are facts about what is right, wrong, good, bad, better, worse, fair, unfair, just, unjust, etc. Another way to say all of this is that Moral or ethical realism is the position that there are at least some objective facts about what matters, period.
In this lecture, I prove that moral realism is almost certainly true. After looking at two bad arguments against moral realism's truth and showing why these are bad arguments, I look at seven good arguments for moral realism's truth and show why these are good arguments.
Does this mean that it is impossible for moral realism to be false? No. What it does mean is that we ought to believe that moral realism is true because the available evidence shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that moral realism is true.
Just as there are various innate functions within ALL humans, there is an innate, inherent, intrinsic moral function that is "programmed" in all humans.
The difficulty here is the existence of a generic innate moral function is not as obvious as other innate functions, like, intelligence, eating, drinking, sex, breathing and the likes.
Just like the drinking function is not about what one or a group like to drink, the moral function is not about moral judgments, decisions, beliefs and opinions by the individual and group.
What is moral realism is grounded on the moral facts that are represented by the physical mechanisms of the moral function within the human brain. This moral facts are independent of the individuals' views.
The above arguments in the OP, i.e. "what matters" are directing our attentions to these moral physical mechanisms in the brain which need to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
??? The physical mechanisms of "the moral function" within the human brain would be identical to the individual's moral views, not independent of them.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:07 am
What is moral realism is grounded on the moral facts that are represented by the physical mechanisms of the moral function within the human brain. This moral facts are independent of the individuals' views.
-
- Posts: 12670
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
That is why I stated your thinking is too shallow and narrow.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:08 am??? The physical mechanisms of "the moral function" within the human brain would be identical to the individual's moral views, not independent of them.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:07 am
What is moral realism is grounded on the moral facts that are represented by the physical mechanisms of the moral function within the human brain. This moral facts are independent of the individuals' views.
I believe what I have posted all over the 'ethical theory' is self-explanatory to my above point.
Note this analogy,
The scientific fact from the scientific-biology FSK is the physical mechanisms of thinking in the human brain, i.e. the related neurons and chemicals is independent of the individual's beliefs.
The above scientific fact will not change until there are new evidence to reject it.
The individual in this case will agree with the above scientific facts that all humans including himself has the physical mechanism [neurons and chemical] for thinking, but he can change his views if he want to challenge it. As such, the individual's view is independent of the scientific fact from the scientific FSK.
Similarly the moral facts from the moral FSK are independent of the individuals' view.
An individual may agree with the moral facts from the moral FSK or he can believe otherwise.
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
'Moral realism ... moral facts ... moral function within the human brain ... moral physical mechanisms'.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:07 am
Just as there are various innate functions within ALL humans, there is an innate, inherent, intrinsic moral function that is "programmed" in all humans.
The difficulty here is the existence of a generic innate moral function is not as obvious as other innate functions, like, intelligence, eating, drinking, sex, breathing and the likes.
Just like the drinking function is not about what one or a group like to drink, the moral function is not about moral judgments, decisions, beliefs and opinions by the individual and group.
What is moral realism is grounded on the moral facts that are represented by the physical mechanisms of the moral function within the human brain. This moral facts are independent of the individuals' views.
The above arguments in the OP, i.e. "what matters" are directing our attentions to these moral physical mechanisms in the brain which need to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
None of these supposed things is 'moral'. You're mis-using the modifier 'moral'. A brain function or physical mechanism just exists, neither moral nor immoral. Brain functions aren't 'moral' or 'immoral'. The whole idea is absurdly incoherent.
You describe morality as being to do with not-evil and evil. Then you say the criterion for being not-evil is conformity to programming, and that being evil is non-conformity with programming. And then you agree that, if we were programmed to kill humans, we ought to kill humans.
So here's your problem. If conformity to programming is the criterion for morality, that could mean we ought to do evil things, such as killing humans.
And you say this demonstrates that morality is objective. Perhaps your evident immunity to self-criticism accounts for your cognitive dissonance.
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
Yes. Peter. We pointed out (a very long time ago) that you are a nihilist.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:37 am A brain function or physical mechanism just exists, neither moral nor immoral. Brain functions aren't 'moral' or 'immoral'. The whole idea is absurdly incoherent.
Your opinions are brain functions. If your "moral opinions" are neither moral nor immoral then you are a nihilist.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:37 am None of these supposed things is 'moral'. You're mis-using the modifier 'moral'.
It's just logic.
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
A moral opinion is an opinion about the moral rightness or wrongness of an action. Just as a legal opinion is an opinion about the legality of an action. Calling the neural activity or brain functioning involved in the production of those opinions 'moral neural activity' or 'legal brain functioning' is ridiculous. Neural activity or brain functioning are neither moral nor immoral, legal nor illegal. That's an absurd category error - a grammatical misattribution. And logic deals with language, not reality.
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
Well, I guess we can all agree with the fact that Peter Holmes doesn't use his brain to arrive at any of his opinions...Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:13 am A moral opinion is an opinion about the moral rightness or wrongness of an action. Just as a legal opinion is an opinion about the legality of an action. Calling the neural activity or brain functioning involved in the production of those opinions 'moral neural activity' or 'legal brain functioning' is ridiculous. Neural activity or brain functioning are neither moral nor immoral, legal nor illegal. That's an absurd category error - a grammatical misattribution. And logic deals with language, not reality.
Wherever and however Peter Holmes' opinions originate from - it ain't a product of his brain activity.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 18, 2021 1:25 pm Of course we can say 'the patient's mind exists' - because that's how we've always talked about our experiences. But it was always really just a way of talking about brain activity
His rectum maybe?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
You're confusing "common belief" (assuming that's even really the case there) with "fact."Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:14 am
Note this analogy,
The scientific fact from the scientific-biology FSK is the physical mechanisms of thinking in the human brain, i.e. the related neurons and chemicals is independent of the individual's beliefs.
The above scientific fact will not change until there are new evidence to reject it.
Believing that something is the case doesn't make it the case, no matter how many people believe it.
-
- Posts: 3800
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
Can't counter a refutation of your argument? No worries. Just abuse the refuter. No one will notice.
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
You are trying to decouple belief from fact, yet you haven't offered us a single fact that nobody believes.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:35 am You're confusing "common belief" (assuming that's even really the case there) with "fact."
Epistemology 101: How do you know?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:35 am Believing that something is the case doesn't make it the case, no matter how many people believe it.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
All of your refutations are refuted with the fallacy fallacy.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:40 am Can't counter a refutation of your argument? No worries. Just abuse the refuter. No one will notice.
Shame. Your religion is broken.
-
- Posts: 12670
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
I have already explained the above a "1000" times.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:37 am'Moral realism ... moral facts ... moral function within the human brain ... moral physical mechanisms'.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:07 am
Just as there are various innate functions within ALL humans, there is an innate, inherent, intrinsic moral function that is "programmed" in all humans.
The difficulty here is the existence of a generic innate moral function is not as obvious as other innate functions, like, intelligence, eating, drinking, sex, breathing and the likes.
Just like the drinking function is not about what one or a group like to drink, the moral function is not about moral judgments, decisions, beliefs and opinions by the individual and group.
What is moral realism is grounded on the moral facts that are represented by the physical mechanisms of the moral function within the human brain. This moral facts are independent of the individuals' views.
The above arguments in the OP, i.e. "what matters" are directing our attentions to these moral physical mechanisms in the brain which need to be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral FSK.
None of these supposed things is 'moral'. You're mis-using the modifier 'moral'. A brain function or physical mechanism just exists, neither moral nor immoral. Brain functions aren't 'moral' or 'immoral'. The whole idea is absurdly incoherent.
You describe morality as being to do with not-evil and evil. Then you say the criterion for being not-evil is conformity to programming, and that being evil is non-conformity with programming. And then you agree that, if we were programmed to kill humans, we ought to kill humans.
So here's your problem. If conformity to programming is the criterion for morality, that could mean we ought to do evil things, such as killing humans.
And you say this demonstrates that morality is objective. Perhaps your evident immunity to self-criticism accounts for your cognitive dissonance.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
When the above are processed via the moral FSK, they are moral elements i.e. moral facts.
-
- Posts: 12670
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
There is no case-in-itself i.e. basically no thing-in-itself.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:35 amYou're confusing "common belief" (assuming that's even really the case there) with "fact."Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 6:14 am
Note this analogy,
The scientific fact from the scientific-biology FSK is the physical mechanisms of thinking in the human brain, i.e. the related neurons and chemicals is independent of the individual's beliefs.
The above scientific fact will not change until there are new evidence to reject it.
Believing that something is the case doesn't make it the case, no matter how many people believe it.
There is only case-via-a-FSK.
I agree beliefs, no matter how many people believe it, will not make it the case or knowledge, fact, truth.
However verification, justification then consensus within a FSK make it a case-of-a-FSK as knowledge, fact and truth.
Example, the scientific FSK synchronize all the beliefs via verification, justification then consensus within its FSK to make it a case-of-a-FSK as knowledge, fact and truth.
Note science at most merely assume there is physical reality and never claim there is a real reality.
If you are referring to "what is the case" as the really real and is independent of any FSK, that is an assumption and if reified is an illusion.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Why Moral Realism Is Almost Certainly True
What is "in itself" adding here?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:05 am There is no case-in-itself i.e. basically no thing-in-itself.
There is only case-via-a-FSK.
At any rate, the reason you'd believe that there's nothing that's the case aside from human experience of it is?