Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Ethical Realism

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 11:26:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What are the arguments for? I've been looking all over but can't find any.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 11:38:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Arguments for moral realism usually appeal to moral intuition. That isn't to say, contrary to what many may caricature it as, that moral realism is based on "emotion." Rather, the argument is one from best explanation -- that moral realism best explains the phenomena that we tend to observe in the world. It works in the same way as someone who appeals to sense experience to justify his perception of a certain something.

From there, proponents of moral realism argue from the fact that moral realism is probably true because it can best explain why we make moral judgments, believe in moral progress/comparison, champion tolerance, and a bunch of other factors.

Some also present a negative argument for moral realism by showing that competing theories (Such as relativism) are incoherent.

A good place to start is Russ Shafer-Landau's "Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?" (Oxford University Press)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 6:59:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At the moment, I tend to think that morality is 'real' in the same sense that language is real. Humans construct sets of rules that stem from invented premises, so the statement 'rape is morally wrong' can be correct or incorrect based on those premises just as the statement 'fullstops come at the end of a sentence' is correct or incorrect depending on the grammar rules invented.

Utilitarianism, Virtue ethics or Kantian ethics are no more or less 'real' than English, German or Chinese.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 3:41:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/7/2011 6:59:07 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At the moment, I tend to think that morality is 'real' in the same sense that language is real. Humans construct sets of rules that stem from invented premises, so the statement 'rape is morally wrong' can be correct or incorrect based on those premises just as the statement 'fullstops come at the end of a sentence' is correct or incorrect depending on the grammar rules invented.

Isn't the argument though that certain premises are foundational and not arbitrary? Such for example Harris who argues it is most wrong to inflict the maximum amount of suffering to the maximum amount of conscious agents.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2011 3:51:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/7/2011 6:59:07 AM, Kinesis wrote:

Utilitarianism, Virtue ethics or Kantian ethics are no more or less 'real' than English, German or Chinese.

That is fairly drastic, how exactly do you defend choices?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 3:40:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/6/2011 11:38:01 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Arguments for moral realism usually appeal to moral intuition. That isn't to say, contrary to what many may caricature it as, that moral realism is based on "emotion." Rather, the argument is one from best explanation -- that moral realism best explains the phenomena that we tend to observe in the world. It works in the same way as someone who appeals to sense experience to justify his perception of a certain something.

From there, proponents of moral realism argue from the fact that moral realism is probably true because it can best explain why we make moral judgments, believe in moral progress/comparison, champion tolerance, and a bunch of other factors.

The problem with that though is that there are other ways to explain our moral feelings regarding how to act. For instance, evolution. Evolution tends to select for certain traits such as altruism, cooperation, and mutually helpful behavior. This would also explain our general double standard regarding women and sexual ethics. I dunno, it just seems like the argument totally ignores the role of human development in conditioning our basic ethical responses.

Some also present a negative argument for moral realism by showing that competing theories (Such as relativism) are incoherent.

Meh, relativism is incoherent I agree but that doesn't really say anything about nihilism which is really the only other option I see as legitimate if realism is false.

A good place to start is Russ Shafer-Landau's "Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?" (Oxford University Press)

I'll check it out ;)
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2012 4:00:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/24/2012 3:50:23 AM, Kinesis wrote:
lol, how did you find this thread again?

Bored.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.