How to be a Moral Realist

[Sculptor]

From your study of history, anthropology and cultural studies, have you come across any groups of human or individual[s] who readily would act or accept that babies can be tortured and killed for pleasure?

Yes.

And is that the ONLY basis of your moral objectivism?

Yes??? tortured and killed for pleasure?? show me the links to the evidence.
Even if there is, normal human sense will indicate that is due to a perversion.

Take a look at "infanticide" and "sacrifice".

You area joke. Every thing you do not agree with is deranged; people who disagree with you not normal.

You lack any trace of self criticism; and are master of self deception.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes.

And is that the ONLY basis of your moral objectivism?

Yes??? tortured and killed for pleasure?? show me the links to the evidence.
Even if there is, normal human sense will indicate that is due to a perversion.

Take a look at "infanticide" and "sacrifice".

You area joke. Every thing you do not agree with is deranged; people who disagree with you not normal.

You lack any trace of self criticism; and are master of self deception.

Why the diversion?
I have already given 'proof' to establish morality is objective as qualified to the moral element, the "oughtnot_ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure'.
I have also stated the above can potentially be confirmed by science [not now, but in the near future].

Re Infanticide, read this;
viewtopic.php?p=707584#p707584
"oughtnot_ness of infanticide'.

The same moral principles and ethics is applicable to human sacrifice.

If you are a moral relativists, you MUST tolerate the above morally and will not do anything about it morally if they are morally permissible within certain cultures.

While I as a Moral Realist [Objectivists] will absolutely not tolerate the above [torture & kill babies, sacrifice humans], but based on my moral principles [..I with the like minded, within the best of our abilities] will find all ethical and legal ways to prevent the heinous evil acts from happening in the future.

[Sculptor]

Yes??? tortured and killed for pleasure?? show me the links to the evidence.
Even if there is, normal human sense will indicate that is due to a perversion.

Take a look at "infanticide" and "sacrifice".

You area joke. Every thing you do not agree with is deranged; people who disagree with you not normal.

You lack any trace of self criticism; and are master of self deception.

Why the diversion?
I have already given 'proof' to establish morality is objective as qualified to the moral element, the "oughtnot_ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure'.
I have also stated the above can potentially be confirmed by science [not now, but in the near future].

Re Infanticide, read this;
viewtopic.php?p=707584#p707584
"oughtnot_ness of infanticide'.

The same moral principles and ethics is applicable to human sacrifice.

If you are a moral relativists, you MUST tolerate the above morally and will not do anything about it morally if they are morally permissible within certain cultures.

While I as a Moral Realist [Objectivists] will absolutely not tolerate the above [torture & kill babies, sacrifice humans], but based on my moral principles [..I with the like minded, within the best of our abilities] will find all ethical and legal ways to prevent the heinous evil acts from happening in the future.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Take a look at "infanticide" and "sacrifice".

You area joke. Every thing you do not agree with is deranged; people who disagree with you not normal.

You lack any trace of self criticism; and are master of self deception.

Why the diversion?
I have already given 'proof' to establish morality is objective as qualified to the moral element, the "oughtnot_ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure'.
I have also stated the above can potentially be confirmed by science [not now, but in the near future].

Re Infanticide, read this;
viewtopic.php?p=707584#p707584
"oughtnot_ness of infanticide'.

The same moral principles and ethics is applicable to human sacrifice.

If you are a moral relativists, you MUST tolerate the above morally and will not do anything about it morally if they are morally permissible within certain cultures.

While I as a Moral Realist [Objectivists] will absolutely not tolerate the above [torture & kill babies, sacrifice humans], but based on my moral principles [..I with the like minded, within the best of our abilities] will find all ethical and legal ways to prevent the heinous evil acts from happening in the future.

You run out of counters and arguments?

If you are a moral relativists, you MUST tolerate the above [that others can torture and kill babies for pleasure if and if that morally permitted within their culture] morally and will not do anything about it morally.

[Age]

From your study of history, anthropology and cultural studies, have you come across any groups of human or individual[s] who readily would act or accept that babies can be tortured and killed for pleasure?

Yes.

And is that the ONLY basis of your moral objectivism?

Yes??? tortured and killed for pleasure?? show me the links to the evidence.
Even if there is, normal human sense will indicate that is due to a perversion.

In the case of moral objectivism or moral realism it has to be qualified to a set specific moral elements.

The "ought-not-ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure" [SF1] is one element of morality.
I claimed this very intuitive moral element is an evident pattern which is inherent in ALL humans.
This evident pattern can be abducted as very tenable scientific hypothesis.
It is very likely the scientific FSERC will confirm the above hypothesis [in the future] as a scientific fact which is objective.
When this scientific fact [SF1] in inputted into the moral FSERC, it is a moral fact which is objective.

My approach is to prove there are objective moral facts via the scientific FSERC.

If there are 'objective moral facts', as you continually claim there is, then why not just list them down here, and obviously if they are 'objective moral facts' absolutely no one would disagree with you here.

And, you can forget about trying to introduce your own made up so-called things like 'scientific fserc's'. They are not helping you at all here.

If there are 'objective moral facts' then just provide them.

How much simpler and easier could this get?

The "ought-not-ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure" is one plausible moral facts, thus as qualified to ONLY this [SFI] morality, is objective.

From the above basis, I will demonstrate there are other similar moral facts with varying degrees of objectivity [nevertheless is still objective].

I don't make a blanket claim 'morality is objective' but the claim must be qualified to the set of specific moral elements that are proven to be objective.

The moral objectivist will insist on the following maxim categorically:
"no babies ought to be tortured and killed for pleasure" because such an outnot_ness is inherent in all humans.

But, some adult human beings torture and/or kill human babies, for pleasure, so where is the alleged inherent 'oughtnotdoness' here, exactly?


Moral objectivists will strongly condemned any torturing and killing of babies for pleasure and take all means [with moral scope] to prevent such heinous evil acts from happening in the future.

On the other hand, if you are a moral subjectivist or relativist, by definition, you MUST tolerate the moral maxim "babies can be tortured and killed for pleasure", if there are certain groups who insist such 'heinous' acts are morally permissible.
Moral relativism or subjectivism is very vile and so you are very vile in being indirectly complicit [morally] to the above act.
You don't have a moral say in stopping people from 'torturing and killing babies for pleasure' nor promote any moral progress to prevent future acts.
[/quote]

[Sculptor]

Why the diversion?
I have already given 'proof' to establish morality is objective as qualified to the moral element, the "oughtnot_ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure'.
I have also stated the above can potentially be confirmed by science [not now, but in the near future].

Re Infanticide, read this;
viewtopic.php?p=707584#p707584
"oughtnot_ness of infanticide'.

The same moral principles and ethics is applicable to human sacrifice.

If you are a moral relativists, you MUST tolerate the above morally and will not do anything about it morally if they are morally permissible within certain cultures.

While I as a Moral Realist [Objectivists] will absolutely not tolerate the above [torture & kill babies, sacrifice humans], but based on my moral principles [..I with the like minded, within the best of our abilities] will find all ethical and legal ways to prevent the heinous evil acts from happening in the future.

You run out of counters and arguments?

If you are a moral relativists, you MUST tolerate the above [that others can torture and kill babies for pleasure if and if that morally permitted within their culture] morally and will not do anything about it morally.

For there to be a counter argument there has to be argument.
You argument goes like this...
My personal moral view is best, therefore objective.
RUn along and play on the motorway

[Veritas Aequitas]

You run out of counters and arguments?

If you are a moral relativists, you MUST tolerate the above [that others can torture and kill babies for pleasure if and if that morally permitted within their culture] morally and will not do anything about it morally.

For there to be a counter argument there has to be argument.
You argument goes like this...
My personal moral view is best, therefore objective.
RUn along and play on the motorway

That is your usual running away when your arguments are failing and the going tough. You have a cognitive deficit to grasp the argument I have presented?

The argument in this thread is simply;

From the scientific realist [Boyd] view [ which I don't agree];

1. Science study patterns and make inferences to discover features of objective reality

2. Boyd argued, there are patterns in morality which science can discovers its related features of objective reality; thus there is moral realism and morality is objective.

3. I gave one example of the evident pattern of moral elements, i.e. the oughtnot-ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure. This is the cause why all humans do commit such evil acts; we do not have reports of such acts had been done by anyone [if any, it is due to mental illness].

So, do you accept Boyd's argument or you think he is talking nonsense.
Read Boyd's argument in the link above.

I do not agree with Boyd's scientific realism which I believe is unnecessary.
Boyd could simply refer to science and scientific objectivity which can then be extended to moral objectivity.
This is what I did with 3 above.
The VERY evident pattern of moral elements, i.e. the oughtnot-ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure infer objectivity [inherent and agreed by all normal humans], very plausible to be confirm by science [FSERC], so its scientific objectivity and thus moral objectivity when dealt within a moral FSERC.

I have dealt with 'what is objectivity' in depth in these threads:
What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
The Two Faces of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=41214
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023
What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707