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.