Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Convert me to realism.

Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2015 10:03:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Moral realism has always seemed like an outrageous concept to me. Relativism seems as evident to me as the sun rising tomorrow morning. Despite this, I am challenged by the fact that the majority of philosophers are realists. I'm just an otaku, so I find it hard to believe I'v got reality more "figured out" than the majority of philosophers. Because of this, I'v been recently trying to better understand realism and why these philosophers have taken this position. So for this thread, I'd like for any of the realists here to try and convince me to switch to realism. First I'm going to explain how I reached the conclusion that moral relativism is true.

Lets define morality.
"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

I ask myself, "What appears to be the foundation of morality"? "What is it that determines if something is right or wrong".
I answer myself " Well it's based on individual self-interest of course", "I only do the things I want because I think they're "good" for me", and "Anything I don't want is "bad"".

I am thus led to believe that morality is contingent on self-interest, because that is what causes morality to manifest in the first place. If there was no human perception in the world (or anything like it) then there would be no concept of right or wrong. So relativism being the foundation of morality seems like the logical conclusion.

Now, here's my problems with realism

Objective is defined as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"

1. Lets pretend someone tells me "Killing is wrong". If this is an objective fact, no possible situation I may fall into, or any possible justification I may offer can ever change this fact. This is my primary problem with realism, it does not consider the consequences of following the "objective facts". If I were to face a situation similar to the trolley problem, I would be stuck with inaction. I would argue (as most would) "killing is right, if it saves more lives than it takes" at least for the trolley problem anyway.

2. A more perplexing issue is how can something void of personal feelings or opinions actually determine what is right or wrong. Rocks don't have a concept of right or wrong, so how could an objective fact actually say "x is good/bad". What sort of entity is "goodness" and "wrongness" in the first place? How can anything other than a self-interested thing, say something is good or bad?

3. There is no evidence of moral facts. We can't even test for them. I perosnally can't even imagine what they would be like

Hopefully someone will explain to me a problem in my line of thinking. If there is one. Other relativists can also comment with criticism or agreement.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 10:26:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 10:03:55 PM, Kozu wrote:

I ask myself, "What appears to be the foundation of morality"? "What is it that determines if something is right or wrong".
I answer myself " Well it's based on individual self-interest of course", "I only do the things I want because I think they're "good" for me", and "Anything I don't want is "bad"".

I am thus led to believe that morality is contingent on self-interest, because that is what causes morality to manifest in the first place.
Sure, you can say this is how you come to believe things to be good/bad, but to say that's ultimately why anything is good or bad is to beg the question against the realist.

If there was no human perception in the world (or anything like it) then there would be no concept of right or wrong. So relativism being the foundation of morality seems like the logical conclusion.
Well, nobody would have a concept of right and wrong, but I'm not sure that means rightness does not exist.

Now, here's my problems with realism

Objective is defined as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"

1. Lets pretend someone tells me "Killing is wrong". If this is an objective fact, no possible situation I may fall into, or any possible justification I may offer can ever change this fact.
Actually, only a fool would tell you that. No realist claims to know all moral truths there are or that her moral knowledge is 100% certain. Moral knowledge, according to the realist, is, like empirical knowledge, a matter of discovery. And no good scientist claims to know anything with undoubtable certainty, either.

This is my primary problem with realism, it does not consider the consequences of following the "objective facts". If I were to face a situation similar to the trolley problem, I would be stuck with inaction. I would argue (as most would) "killing is right, if it saves more lives than it takes" at least for the trolley problem anyway.
Moral realism is a thesis about the existence of moral facts, how we come to know them and how they can motivate us. It is silent about first order questions like trolley problems.

2. A more perplexing issue is how can something void of personal feelings or opinions actually determine what is right or wrong. Rocks don't have a concept of right or wrong, so how could an objective fact actually say "x is good/bad". What sort of entity is "goodness" and "wrongness" in the first place? How can anything other than a self-interested thing, say something is good or bad?
I'm not sure I understand this point. Of course rocks don't have a concept of right and wrong, but then again, rocks lack rationality.

3. There is no evidence of moral facts. We can't even test for them. I perosnally can't even imagine what they would be like
There's no empirical evidence for the existence of numbers, yet mathematicians will tell you they exist, "out there in Plato's heaven". And although I find it hard to think about something non-physical (and non-mental), the most reasonable thing is, I think, to say they exist.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 3:43:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 10:26:47 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/26/2015 10:03:55 PM, Kozu wrote:

I ask myself, "What appears to be the foundation of morality"? "What is it that determines if something is right or wrong".
I answer myself " Well it's based on individual self-interest of course", "I only do the things I want because I think they're "good" for me", and "Anything I don't want is "bad"".

I am thus led to believe that morality is contingent on self-interest, because that is what causes morality to manifest in the first place.
Sure, you can say this is how you come to believe things to be good/bad, but to say that's ultimately why anything is good or bad is to beg the question against the realist.

I'm just using prima facie evidence to come to my conclusion. What does the realist offer to suggest otherwise?

If there was no human perception in the world (or anything like it) then there would be no concept of right or wrong. So relativism being the foundation of morality seems like the logical conclusion.
Well, nobody would have a concept of right and wrong, but I'm not sure that means rightness does not exist.

That exactly what it means. How can rightness or wrongness exist without it being proposed by something with a mind, and self interest.

Now, here's my problems with realism

Objective is defined as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"

1. Lets pretend someone tells me "Killing is wrong". If this is an objective fact, no possible situation I may fall into, or any possible justification I may offer can ever change this fact.
Actually, only a fool would tell you that. No realist claims to know all moral truths there are or that her moral knowledge is 100% certain. Moral knowledge, according to the realist, is, like empirical knowledge, a matter of discovery. And no good scientist claims to know anything with undoubtable certainty, either.

I guess there's a lot of fools then.

I think it goes without saying that no one can reach 100% certainty, although I would expect a realist would be at least confident enough to assert their moral facts, since they're apparently "facts".

This is my primary problem with realism, it does not consider the consequences of following the "objective facts". If I were to face a situation similar to the trolley problem, I would be stuck with inaction. I would argue (as most would) "killing is right, if it saves more lives than it takes" at least for the trolley problem anyway.
Moral realism is a thesis about the existence of moral facts, how we come to know them and how they can motivate us. It is silent about first order questions like trolley problems.

How can I come to know these moral facts?

Not to put you on the spot, but how do you solve the trolley problem, being a realist.

2. A more perplexing issue is how can something void of personal feelings or opinions actually determine what is right or wrong. Rocks don't have a concept of right or wrong, so how could an objective fact actually say "x is good/bad". What sort of entity is "goodness" and "wrongness" in the first place? How can anything other than a self-interested thing, say something is good or bad?
I'm not sure I understand this point. Of course rocks don't have a concept of right and wrong, but then again, rocks lack rationality.

If an objective fact says something is "good" or "bad", what do those properties look like, what are they? How can something say X is right or wrong without having rationality.

3. There is no evidence of moral facts. We can't even test for them. I perosnally can't even imagine what they would be like
There's no empirical evidence for the existence of numbers, yet mathematicians will tell you they exist, "out there in Plato's heaven". And although I find it hard to think about something non-physical (and non-mental), the most reasonable thing is, I think, to say they exist.

Numbers are a reflection of reality, they're just there to represent what we see. I'm guessing moral facts are to serve the same purpose, I'd like to know what it is they're reflecting off of, because I don't see it like I would see 3 dogs. Once reflected, how do we recognize them? By our intuition? I haven't the faintest idea.

Still don't feel like I'v been given a reason to believe in moral facts.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 6:01:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 3:43:36 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/27/2015 10:26:47 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/26/2015 10:03:55 PM, Kozu wrote:

I ask myself, "What appears to be the foundation of morality"? "What is it that determines if something is right or wrong".
I answer myself " Well it's based on individual self-interest of course", "I only do the things I want because I think they're "good" for me", and "Anything I don't want is "bad"".

I am thus led to believe that morality is contingent on self-interest, because that is what causes morality to manifest in the first place.
Sure, you can say this is how you come to believe things to be good/bad, but to say that's ultimately why anything is good or bad is to beg the question against the realist.

I'm just using prima facie evidence to come to my conclusion. What does the realist offer to suggest otherwise?
In what regard? The realist will of course say that moral statements are true or false independent of what anyone thinks, if that answers your question. If you are asking why moral facts are like they are, then I fear I cannot answer that. I think they are brute facts. Which is of course not the most satisfying answer, but why are the laws of logic like they are?

That exactly what it means. How can rightness or wrongness exist without it being proposed by something with a mind, and self interest.
In the same way the external world exists without anyone perceiving it, I suppose.

Actually, only a fool would tell you that. No realist claims to know all moral truths there are or that her moral knowledge is 100% certain. Moral knowledge, according to the realist, is, like empirical knowledge, a matter of discovery. And no good scientist claims to know anything with undoubtable certainty, either.

I guess there's a lot of fools then.
And you probably guessed right.

I think it goes without saying that no one can reach 100% certainty, although I would expect a realist would be at least confident enough to assert their moral facts, since they're apparently "facts".
That goes without saying.

Not to put you on the spot, but how do you solve the trolley problem, being a realist.
I save the five of course. But that is not because I'm a realist, that is because I'm a utilitarian.

If an objective fact says something is "good" or "bad", what do those properties look like, what are they?
'Good' is simple and undefinable. Whenever you try to define it, it looses a part of its impact. I can't tell you what goodness looks like, which is of course not a satisfying answer, but it's not even definable so it is somewhat misguided to ask what it is like. However, that is not needed to be a realist.

How can something say X is right or wrong without having rationality.
Perhaps my wording was a bit strange or something but what I intended to say is that obviously rocks cannot have a concept of right and wrong, because they also cannot be rational.

Numbers are a reflection of reality, they're just there to represent what we see.
It's rather hard to account for the objectivity of mathematics when its just a human construct, but whatever. I wanted to make a point, not argue it.

I'm guessing moral facts are to serve the same purpose, I'd like to know what it is they're reflecting off of, because I don't see it like I would see 3 dogs. Once reflected, how do we recognize them? By our intuition? I haven't the faintest idea.
How can I come to know these moral facts?
Sorry for editing what you wrote, but these seem to me like similar questions, so I thought I might answer them together.
I suppose we evolved in a way such that our normative beliefs are somewhat in line with normative facts. From then on it's a matter of regular epistemology.

Still don't feel like I'v been given a reason to believe in moral facts.
I'm not an infinite source of arguments and one of the two I know I have already presented. I am fully aware that not everyone is going to be convinced by the arguments for realism, but that is not it's strong suit. Realism takes morality seriously in that it can account for what is essential to our moral discourse better than any other metaethics. It's a game of plausibility points.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 6:45:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 6:01:32 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/27/2015 3:43:36 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/27/2015 10:26:47 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/26/2015 10:03:55 PM, Kozu wrote:

I ask myself, "What appears to be the foundation of morality"? "What is it that determines if something is right or wrong".
I answer myself " Well it's based on individual self-interest of course", "I only do the things I want because I think they're "good" for me", and "Anything I don't want is "bad"".

I am thus led to believe that morality is contingent on self-interest, because that is what causes morality to manifest in the first place.
Sure, you can say this is how you come to believe things to be good/bad, but to say that's ultimately why anything is good or bad is to beg the question against the realist.

I'm just using prima facie evidence to come to my conclusion. What does the realist offer to suggest otherwise?
In what regard? The realist will of course say that moral statements are true or false independent of what anyone thinks, if that answers your question.

But why do they even think that to begin with? What is it that suggests to them that right and wrong are determined from belief-independent entities.

If you are asking why moral facts are like they are, then I fear I cannot answer that. I think they are brute facts. Which is of course not the most satisfying answer, but why are the laws of logic like they are?

That exactly what it means. How can rightness or wrongness exist without it being proposed by something with a mind, and self interest.
In the same way the external world exists without anyone perceiving it, I suppose.

That's vague.

Actually, only a fool would tell you that. No realist claims to know all moral truths there are or that her moral knowledge is 100% certain. Moral knowledge, according to the realist, is, like empirical knowledge, a matter of discovery. And no good scientist claims to know anything with undoubtable certainty, either.

I guess there's a lot of fools then.
And you probably guessed right.

I think it goes without saying that no one can reach 100% certainty, although I would expect a realist would be at least confident enough to assert their moral facts, since they're apparently "facts".
That goes without saying.

Do you "know" any moral facts?

Not to put you on the spot, but how do you solve the trolley problem, being a realist.
I save the five of course. But that is not because I'm a realist, that is because I'm a utilitarian.

I don't see how utilitarianism and realism can work together. Realism ignores the consequences, utilitarianism focuses on them.

If an objective fact says something is "good" or "bad", what do those properties look like, what are they?
'Good' is simple and undefinable. Whenever you try to define it, it looses a part of its impact. I can't tell you what goodness looks like, which is of course not a satisfying answer, but it's not even definable so it is somewhat misguided to ask what it is like. However, that is not needed to be a realist.

If good can't be defined, how can a moral fact even label anything good.

How can something say X is right or wrong without having rationality.
Perhaps my wording was a bit strange or something but what I intended to say is that obviously rocks cannot have a concept of right and wrong, because they also cannot be rational.

So how can a moral fact, which lacks rationality, determine if something is good or bad.

Numbers are a reflection of reality, they're just there to represent what we see.
It's rather hard to account for the objectivity of mathematics when its just a human construct, but whatever. I wanted to make a point, not argue it.

Numbers, like morality, are entirely human constructs. Neither of them can be tested for or proven. There are no objective facts about either, we made them up for our own convenience.

I'm guessing moral facts are to serve the same purpose, I'd like to know what it is they're reflecting off of, because I don't see it like I would see 3 dogs. Once reflected, how do we recognize them? By our intuition? I haven't the faintest idea.
How can I come to know these moral facts?
Sorry for editing what you wrote, but these seem to me like similar questions, so I thought I might answer them together.
I suppose we evolved in a way such that our normative beliefs are somewhat in line with normative facts. From then on it's a matter of regular epistemology.

They're "somewhat" in line? How do I know which normative beliefs are in line?

Still don't feel like I'v been given a reason to believe in moral facts.
I'm not an infinite source of arguments and one of the two I know I have already presented. I am fully aware that not everyone is going to be convinced by the arguments for realism, but that is not it's strong suit. Realism takes morality seriously in that it can account for what is essential to our moral discourse better than any other metaethics. It's a game of plausibility points.

Other then being able to discuss morality, what else is essential for moral discourse? I wanted to say in your other thread that it isn't necessary that moral statements purport objectivity, even if we want them to.

I honestly don't see anything that realism accounts for. What crucial question(s) is realism accounting for?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 7:47:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 6:45:22 PM, Kozu wrote:

But why do they even think that to begin with? What is it that suggests to them that right and wrong are determined from belief-independent entities.
The argument I presented in that other thread would be a good start.

That exactly what it means. How can rightness or wrongness exist without it being proposed by something with a mind, and self interest.
In the same way the external world exists without anyone perceiving it, I suppose.

That's vague.
That is at least how I imagine it.

Do you "know" any moral facts?
Sure, I know that murder is generally wrong. Of course not with 100% certainty, but it is hard to imagine what would disprove this. Assuming realism of course.

Not to put you on the spot, but how do you solve the trolley problem, being a realist.
I save the five of course. But that is not because I'm a realist, that is because I'm a utilitarian.

I don't see how utilitarianism and realism can work together. Realism ignores the consequences, utilitarianism focuses on them.
How so? If pleasure and pain are the only proper moral values, then I don't see the problem.

If an objective fact says something is "good" or "bad", what do those properties look like, what are they?
'Good' is simple and undefinable. Whenever you try to define it, it looses a part of its impact. I can't tell you what goodness looks like, which is of course not a satisfying answer, but it's not even definable so it is somewhat misguided to ask what it is like. However, that is not needed to be a realist.

If good can't be defined, how can a moral fact even label anything good.
That fact that it cannot be given a precise definition does not mean that it cannot be understood. Everyone reacts in some way when he is told that X is good. We can understand it, we just can't properly define it.

How can something say X is right or wrong without having rationality.
Perhaps my wording was a bit strange or something but what I intended to say is that obviously rocks cannot have a concept of right and wrong, because they also cannot be rational.

So how can a moral fact, which lacks rationality, determine if something is good or bad.
There's a difference between determining what is moral and having a concept of what is moral. The former does not need rationality while the latter does.

Numbers are a reflection of reality, they're just there to represent what we see.
It's rather hard to account for the objectivity of mathematics when its just a human construct, but whatever. I wanted to make a point, not argue it.

Numbers, like morality, are entirely human constructs.
I understand that you don't agree with platonism. It was merely intended as an analogy, not an argument for platonism.

Neither of them can be tested for or proven. There are no objective facts about either, we made them up for our own convenience.
The Quine-Putnam indispensability argument and other reasons was enough to convince ~33% of philosophers and probably even more mathematicians that numbers exist. If they are just convenience, then you must be able to find a way of doing science without them.

I suppose we evolved in a way such that our normative beliefs are somewhat in line with normative facts. From then on it's a matter of regular epistemology.

They're "somewhat" in line? How do I know which normative beliefs are in line?
Finding that out is the task of moral epistemology. Those beliefs which are most certainly true are most certainly in line.

Other then being able to discuss morality, what else is essential for moral discourse? I wanted to say in your other thread that it isn't necessary that moral statements purport objectivity, even if we want them to.

I honestly don't see anything that realism accounts for. What crucial question(s) is realism accounting for?
For example, realism makes sense of moral disagreement, wich subjectivism and many other views do not. It takes the commitments of moral discourse, such as objectivity seriously (I acknowledge that you disagree and we can of course discuss that, but I am merely explaining this from my point of view). It is, as far as I am aware, the only view that makes sense of moral progress. The possibility of which I count among the many commitments of moral discourse.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 1:55:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 10:03:55 PM, Kozu wrote:
Moral realism has always seemed like an outrageous concept to me. Relativism seems as evident to me as the sun rising tomorrow morning. Despite this, I am challenged by the fact that the majority of philosophers are realists. I'm just an otaku, so I find it hard to believe I'v got reality more "figured out" than the majority of philosophers. Because of this, I'v been recently trying to better understand realism and why these philosophers have taken this position. So for this thread, I'd like for any of the realists here to try and convince me to switch to realism. First I'm going to explain how I reached the conclusion that moral relativism is true.

The question is why is the sun rising tomorrow morning evident to you? Wouldn"t you consider the sun rising tomorrow morning to be an objective fact? Well, you arrived at that conclusion through a process of inductive reasoning, the same process by which we arrive at most of our scientific and other types of objective facts. Induction is a matter of logically progressing from particular or individual instances to broader generalizations which we take to be objectively true.

We arrive at objective moral knowledge in the same way that we arrive at other types of objective knowledge, by the discernment of underlying principles from the observation of specific instances, which are then tested by examining how well those principles align with further observations. By this process of inductive reasoning we can objectively conclude that human beings are morally responsible causal agents. It is by direct observation of humanity that we can recognize real mental and moral causality in the universe, and from that, we conclude that morality has ontological status and moral knowledge is objective knowledge.

Lets define morality.
"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

I ask myself, "What appears to be the foundation of morality"? "What is it that determines if something is right or wrong".
I answer myself " Well it's based on individual self-interest of course", "I only do the things I want because I think they're "good" for me", and "Anything I don't want is "bad"".

Nonsense, there is no reason whatsoever to think morality is based on self-interest, it is very much to the contrary.

Morality is more often a matter of subordinating self-interest for the interests of other people, quite often it can be a sacrificial effort. Morality involves an inner transformation, it's a matter of transcending self-interest in favor of participation in something greater than the realm in which our own materiality is located, it's about extending our awareness and being to include the experience created in others by our actions. It is a matter of adopting a perspective that defines self in more expansive terms, a process by which we strive to be one with our fellow man.

I am thus led to believe that morality is contingent on self-interest, because that is what causes morality to manifest in the first place.

Still nonsense, morality is about cooperation rather than self-interest, we are naturally predisposed to act cooperatively, to help others even when it costs us, that is an observed objective fact about human nature.

If there was no human perception in the world (or anything like it) then there would be no concept of right or wrong. So relativism being the foundation of morality seems like the logical conclusion.

But there is human perception in the world, and our perception of that world provides us with an experiential reality that includes values, meaning, and purpose. That is what the evidence entails and there is no reason whatsoever that you should not consider it to be an objective fact.

Now, here's my problems with realism

Objective is defined as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"

1. Lets pretend someone tells me "Killing is wrong". If this is an objective fact, no possible situation I may fall into, or any possible justification I may offer can ever change this fact.

You are confusing "objective" with "absolute", they aren"t the same thing.

This is my primary problem with realism, it does not consider the consequences of following the "objective facts". If I were to face a situation similar to the trolley problem, I would be stuck with inaction. I would argue (as most would) "killing is right, if it saves more lives than it takes" at least for the trolley problem anyway.

Your conclusion ""killing is right, if it saves more lives than it takes" is not a matter of self-interest, so your argument is self-refuting.

2. A more perplexing issue is how can something void of personal feelings or opinions actually determine what is right or wrong. Rocks don't have a concept of right or wrong, so how could an objective fact actually say "x is good/bad".

If you define "Objective Morality" as morality that would exist independently of human beings, then you are using a meaningless definition. Morality is about how human beings ought to act, you can"t remove humanity from that equation. To question objective morality independently of human beings is to pose the question in the context of a reality in which logic, philosophy, science, morality, reasoning, arguments and questions don"t exist either.

What sort of entity is "goodness" and "wrongness" in the first place? How can anything other than a self-interested thing, say something is good or bad?

Good is an ideal that calls us to discern and then realize it. There are objective values, values that hold for everyone and that are more than matters of personal choice and opinion, and that can be apprehended in and through ordinary experience. In the end, morality is concerned with the perception of objective goodness, moral practice is a natural response to the discernment of an objective value.

3. There is no evidence of moral facts. We can't even test for them. I perosnally can't even imagine what they would be like

Hopefully someone will explain to me a problem in my line of thinking. If there is one.

I think I've pointed out several.

Other relativists can also comment with criticism or agreement.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 7:56:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your problem worried Sam Harris a confirmed atheist so he wrote ' The Moral Landscape ' and in this book he sought to standardise moral thought.
His yardstick was well- being ; if an act increased well being of others it wad a moral act , if it did the opposite it was immoral.
There are many actions taken by men that make no real sense in terms of survival of the fittest. Western civilisation does its best to keep alive the most unfit sometimes to the point of the ridiculous.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:14:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 11:45:38 PM, Kozu wrote:
I got sticky'd!

Thank me :P
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 1:14:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Define "right" and "wrong."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 3:03:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 1:14:47 PM, tejretics wrote:
Define "right" and "wrong."

Well I explained what I thought was good and bad, so that should give you an idea of right/wrong.

Was kind of hoping you would define them for me.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 3:06:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 3:03:19 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:14:47 PM, tejretics wrote:
Define "right" and "wrong."

Well I explained what I thought was good and bad, so that should give you an idea of right/wrong.

Was kind of hoping you would define them for me.

There are variant forms of what "moral realism" is. There is an objective social code followed by many species, which you could say is maintaining "conduct," since, objectively, within evolution itself, some misconduct is looked down upon, as seen in lions. Lions have a "code of conduct," if you could call it that--as do humans. In essence, that social code could be seen as morality. But it depends on what you *interpret* as realism. Ultimately, the definitions of "morality" seem to indicate non-cognitivism. Overall, I'm skeptical of all moral views, and tend to remain agnostic on the issue.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 3:08:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Preference utilitarianism and rational egoism are the two moral positions that are most appealing to me, since either could have evolutionary origins -- the former could, since we have an intrinsic desire to stay happy, and biological altruism means allowing others to "stay happy" to aid in the survival of the species (e.g. preventing suffering); the latter is more likely to be selected for as a trait in social animals, since natural selection is primarily based on individual survival. I think each species has its own "moral code," which is "objective" in a sense, since it has evolutionary and environmental origins -- it isn't necessarily subjective.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 3:27:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 3:06:08 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/1/2015 3:03:19 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:14:47 PM, tejretics wrote:
Define "right" and "wrong."

Well I explained what I thought was good and bad, so that should give you an idea of right/wrong.

Was kind of hoping you would define them for me.

There are variant forms of what "moral realism" is. There is an objective social code followed by many species, which you could say is maintaining "conduct," since, objectively, within evolution itself, some misconduct is looked down upon, as seen in lions.

I'v considered that objective morality could be tied to evolution, however I couldn't figure out how I was supposed to decide which actions the animals were taking are "moral/immoral".

Lions have a "code of conduct," if you could call it that--as do humans. In essence, that social code could be seen as morality. But it depends on what you *interpret* as realism. Ultimately, the definitions of "morality" seem to indicate non-cognitivism. Overall, I'm skeptical of all moral views, and tend to remain agnostic on the issue.

I think me needing to interpret it, makes it rather subjective.
Expressivism, sounded really appealing to me when I first looked it up. I was however put off by the idea that when someone says "Boo! Abortion", it isn't seen as an objective fact that that person doesn't like abortion.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 3:34:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 3:27:28 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/1/2015 3:06:08 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/1/2015 3:03:19 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:14:47 PM, tejretics wrote:
Define "right" and "wrong."

Well I explained what I thought was good and bad, so that should give you an idea of right/wrong.

Was kind of hoping you would define them for me.

There are variant forms of what "moral realism" is. There is an objective social code followed by many species, which you could say is maintaining "conduct," since, objectively, within evolution itself, some misconduct is looked down upon, as seen in lions.

I'v considered that objective morality could be tied to evolution, however I couldn't figure out how I was supposed to decide which actions the animals were taking are "moral/immoral".

There are two ways to answer this question -- in the sense of utilitarianism, and in the sense of rational egoism.

(1) In the utilitarian sense [for those "utilitarian" species, e.g. bees], that which is a greater loss to the community than it is a benefit is "immoral."

(2) In the egoistic sense, that which has no basis regarding selective survival is immoral [e.g. when there's plenty of prey around, a tiger in fittest form attacks an elephant -- that would be considered "immoral"].


Lions have a "code of conduct," if you could call it that--as do humans. In essence, that social code could be seen as morality. But it depends on what you *interpret* as realism. Ultimately, the definitions of "morality" seem to indicate non-cognitivism. Overall, I'm skeptical of all moral views, and tend to remain agnostic on the issue.

I think me needing to interpret it, makes it rather subjective.

Then any undefined word is subjective, which is nonsense.

Expressivism, sounded really appealing to me when I first looked it up. I was however put off by the idea that when someone says "Boo! Abortion", it isn't seen as an objective fact that that person doesn't like abortion.

I don't get what you mean. "Expressivism is a form of moral anti-realism or nonfactualism: the view that there are no moral facts that moral sentences describe or represent, and no moral properties or relations to which moral terms refer."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 3:36:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 3:27:28 PM, Kozu wrote:

Expressivism, sounded really appealing to me when I first looked it up. I was however put off by the idea that when someone says "Boo! Abortion", it isn't seen as an objective fact that that person doesn't like abortion.

You're strawmanning moral non-cognitivism. While it's a fact that the person doesn't like abortion, that isn't a *moral* statement--it's just an assertion; non-cognitivism dismisses *moral* assertions...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 5:05:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 3:36:21 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/1/2015 3:27:28 PM, Kozu wrote:

Expressivism, sounded really appealing to me when I first looked it up. I was however put off by the idea that when someone says "Boo! Abortion", it isn't seen as an objective fact that that person doesn't like abortion.

You're strawmanning moral non-cognitivism. While it's a fact that the person doesn't like abortion, that isn't a *moral* statement--it's just an assertion; non-cognitivism dismisses *moral* assertions...

I'm saying i think it's ridiculous to not treat it as a moral statement.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 5:27:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 3:34:50 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/1/2015 3:27:28 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/1/2015 3:06:08 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/1/2015 3:03:19 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/1/2015 1:14:47 PM, tejretics wrote:
Define "right" and "wrong."

Well I explained what I thought was good and bad, so that should give you an idea of right/wrong.

Was kind of hoping you would define them for me.

There are variant forms of what "moral realism" is. There is an objective social code followed by many species, which you could say is maintaining "conduct," since, objectively, within evolution itself, some misconduct is looked down upon, as seen in lions.

I'v considered that objective morality could be tied to evolution, however I couldn't figure out how I was supposed to decide which actions the animals were taking are "moral/immoral".

There are two ways to answer this question -- in the sense of utilitarianism, and in the sense of rational egoism.

(1) In the utilitarian sense [for those "utilitarian" species, e.g. bees], that which is a greater loss to the community than it is a benefit is "immoral."

(2) In the egoistic sense, that which has no basis regarding selective survival is immoral [e.g. when there's plenty of prey around, a tiger in fittest form attacks an elephant -- that would be considered "immoral"].

Deciding "that which is a greater loss to the community than it is a benefit, is "immoral." Sounds like something you decided was good, or the bee's decided were good. I don't see how that makes it objectively good.

Same for two. Why is "that which promotes survival" considered good. I imagine its only good if one wants to live.


Lions have a "code of conduct," if you could call it that--as do humans. In essence, that social code could be seen as morality. But it depends on what you *interpret* as realism. Ultimately, the definitions of "morality" seem to indicate non-cognitivism. Overall, I'm skeptical of all moral views, and tend to remain agnostic on the issue.

I think me needing to interpret it, makes it rather subjective.

Then any undefined word is subjective, which is nonsense.

I mean to say that interpreting the lions "code of conduct" is rather subjective. Just because they think survival is good, doesn't mean it is.

Expressivism, sounded really appealing to me when I first looked it up. I was however put off by the idea that when someone says "Boo! Abortion", it isn't seen as an objective fact that that person doesn't like abortion.

I don't get what you mean. "Expressivism is a form of moral anti-realism or nonfactualism: the view that there are no moral facts that moral sentences describe or represent, and no moral properties or relations to which moral terms refer."
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 5:46:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 7:47:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/27/2015 6:45:22 PM, Kozu wrote:

But why do they even think that to begin with? What is it that suggests to them that right and wrong are determined from belief-independent entities.
The argument I presented in that other thread would be a good start.

I'll have to go back to them again.

That exactly what it means. How can rightness or wrongness exist without it being proposed by something with a mind, and self interest.
In the same way the external world exists without anyone perceiving it, I suppose.

That's vague.
That is at least how I imagine it.

Do you "know" any moral facts?
Sure, I know that murder is generally wrong. Of course not with 100% certainty, but it is hard to imagine what would disprove this. Assuming realism of course.

I always thought that realism implied some form of deontological ethics, where the actions themselves matter and not the consequences. Objectively saying murder is generally wrong, sounds like "1+1 is generally 2", but if realism can work with utilitarianism I wouldn't be so resistant to accept it.

Not to put you on the spot, but how do you solve the trolley problem, being a realist.
I save the five of course. But that is not because I'm a realist, that is because I'm a utilitarian.

I don't see how utilitarianism and realism can work together. Realism ignores the consequences, utilitarianism focuses on them.
How so? If pleasure and pain are the only proper moral values, then I don't see the problem.

Maybe I missed how we can established that these are (objectively) the only moral values.

If an objective fact says something is "good" or "bad", what do those properties look like, what are they?
'Good' is simple and undefinable. Whenever you try to define it, it looses a part of its impact. I can't tell you what goodness looks like, which is of course not a satisfying answer, but it's not even definable so it is somewhat misguided to ask what it is like. However, that is not needed to be a realist.

If good can't be defined, how can a moral fact even label anything good.
That fact that it cannot be given a precise definition does not mean that it cannot be understood. Everyone reacts in some way when he is told that X is good. We can understand it, we just can't properly define it.

I understand its just their intuitive reaction, not a reflection of some ambiguous objective fact.

How can something say X is right or wrong without having rationality.
Perhaps my wording was a bit strange or something but what I intended to say is that obviously rocks cannot have a concept of right and wrong, because they also cannot be rational.

So how can a moral fact, which lacks rationality, determine if something is good or bad.
There's a difference between determining what is moral and having a concept of what is moral. The former does not need rationality while the latter does.
Numbers are a reflection of reality, they're just there to represent what we see.
It's rather hard to account for the objectivity of mathematics when its just a human construct, but whatever. I wanted to make a point, not argue it.

Numbers, like morality, are entirely human constructs.
I understand that you don't agree with platonism. It was merely intended as an analogy, not an argument for platonism.

I'll accept platonism for now.

Neither of them can be tested for or proven. There are no objective facts about either, we made them up for our own convenience.
The Quine-Putnam indispensability argument and other reasons was enough to convince ~33% of philosophers and probably even more mathematicians that numbers exist. If they are just convenience, then you must be able to find a way of doing science without them.

Never did figure out why I wouldn't be allowed to do science if I was a nominalist. I'm sure the 37% of philosophers that do follow it, can.

I suppose we evolved in a way such that our normative beliefs are somewhat in line with normative facts. From then on it's a matter of regular epistemology.

They're "somewhat" in line? How do I know which normative beliefs are in line?
Finding that out is the task of moral epistemology. Those beliefs which are most certainly true are most certainly in line.

Other then being able to discuss morality, what else is essential for moral discourse? I wanted to say in your other thread that it isn't necessary that moral statements purport objectivity, even if we want them to.

I honestly don't see anything that realism accounts for. What crucial question(s) is realism accounting for?
For example, realism makes sense of moral disagreement, wich subjectivism and many other views do not. It takes the commitments of moral discourse, such as objectivity seriously (I acknowledge that you disagree and we can of course discuss that, but I am merely explaining this from my point of view). It is, as far as I am aware, the only view that makes sense of moral progress. The possibility of which I count among the many commitments of moral discourse.

I guess you could reply to my profile comment here, since i basically asked you the same thing there.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 7:36:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 5:46:44 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/27/2015 7:47:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/27/2015 6:45:22 PM, Kozu wrote:

But why do they even think that to begin with? What is it that suggests to them that right and wrong are determined from belief-independent entities.
The argument I presented in that other thread would be a good start.

I'll have to go back to them again.

That exactly what it means. How can rightness or wrongness exist without it being proposed by something with a mind, and self interest.
In the same way the external world exists without anyone perceiving it, I suppose.

That's vague.
That is at least how I imagine it.

Do you "know" any moral facts?
Sure, I know that murder is generally wrong. Of course not with 100% certainty, but it is hard to imagine what would disprove this. Assuming realism of course.

I always thought that realism implied some form of deontological ethics, where the actions themselves matter and not the consequences.
Fortunately not lol. Utilitarianism is far from relativism of any kind.

Objectively saying murder is generally wrong, sounds like "1+1 is generally 2",
Generally not always, since there are of course instances where one would have to kill a dictator to save a hundreds of people from executed or something.

but if realism can work with utilitarianism I wouldn't be so resistant to accept it.
Good to hear I guess.

If good can't be defined, how can a moral fact even label anything good.
That fact that it cannot be given a precise definition does not mean that it cannot be understood. Everyone reacts in some way when he is told that X is good. We can understand it, we just can't properly define it.

I understand its just their intuitive reaction, not a reflection of some ambiguous objective fact.
In some cases, of course. But also when I consider all the arguments, make up my mind and sincerely judge something to be good I will experience this "ought-to-be-done"-ness that is so hard to define without loosing a part of its force.

Neither of them can be tested for or proven. There are no objective facts about either, we made them up for our own convenience.
The Quine-Putnam indispensability argument and other reasons was enough to convince ~33% of philosophers and probably even more mathematicians that numbers exist. If they are just convenience, then you must be able to find a way of doing science without them.

Never did figure out why I wouldn't be allowed to do science if I was a nominalist. I'm sure the 37% of philosophers that do follow it, can.
It's not that they aren't allowed it is a challenge to nominalists: find a way to do science without numbers. And I think nominalism can't do that.

I suppose we evolved in a way such that our normative beliefs are somewhat in line with normative facts. From then on it's a matter of regular epistemology.

They're "somewhat" in line? How do I know which normative beliefs are in line?
Finding that out is the task of moral epistemology. Those beliefs which are most certainly true are most certainly in line.

Other then being able to discuss morality, what else is essential for moral discourse? I wanted to say in your other thread that it isn't necessary that moral statements purport objectivity, even if we want them to.

I honestly don't see anything that realism accounts for. What crucial question(s) is realism accounting for?
For example, realism makes sense of moral disagreement, wich subjectivism and many other views do not. It takes the commitments of moral discourse, such as objectivity seriously (I acknowledge that you disagree and we can of course discuss that, but I am merely explaining this from my point of view). It is, as far as I am aware, the only view that makes sense of moral progress. The possibility of which I count among the many commitments of moral discourse.

I guess you could reply to my profile comment here, since i basically asked you the same thing there.
Guess I'll do that next.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 9:08:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am sure you have already talked about some of what I am going to say, but here are some of my thoughts.

I ask myself, "What appears to be the foundation of morality"? "What is it that determines if something is right or wrong".

I am convinced that Utility is what determines such.

"Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." (John Stuart Mill)

Objective is defined as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"

1. Lets pretend someone tells me "Killing is wrong". If this is an objective fact, no possible situation I may fall into, or any possible justification I may offer can ever change this fact. This is my primary problem with realism, it does not consider the consequences of following the "objective facts". If I were to face a situation similar to the trolley problem, I would be stuck with inaction. I would argue (as most would) "killing is right, if it saves more lives than it takes" at least for the trolley problem anyway.

The issue I have here is from objectivity you jump to categorical imperatives. Thus you seem to really be skeptic of Deontological morality. Consequential ethics is also "objective."It just looks at the ends, not the means.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2015 10:29:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 9:08:48 PM, kasmic wrote:
I am sure you have already talked about some of what I am going to say, but here are some of my thoughts.

I ask myself, "What appears to be the foundation of morality"? "What is it that determines if something is right or wrong".

I am convinced that Utility is what determines such.

"Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." (John Stuart Mill)

Objective is defined as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"

1. Lets pretend someone tells me "Killing is wrong". If this is an objective fact, no possible situation I may fall into, or any possible justification I may offer can ever change this fact. This is my primary problem with realism, it does not consider the consequences of following the "objective facts". If I were to face a situation similar to the trolley problem, I would be stuck with inaction. I would argue (as most would) "killing is right, if it saves more lives than it takes" at least for the trolley problem anyway.

The issue I have here is from objectivity you jump to categorical imperatives. Thus you seem to really be skeptic of Deontological morality. Consequential ethics is also "objective."It just looks at the ends, not the means.

Fkkize took the liberty of pointing that out to me as well. Although I still don't understand how the statement "we should maximize well-being" can be justified without invoking personal opinion.
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 10:42:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 10:29:03 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/1/2015 9:08:48 PM, kasmic wrote:
I am sure you have already talked about some of what I am going to say, but here are some of my thoughts.

I ask myself, "What appears to be the foundation of morality"? "What is it that determines if something is right or wrong".

I am convinced that Utility is what determines such.

"Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." (John Stuart Mill)

Objective is defined as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"

1. Lets pretend someone tells me "Killing is wrong". If this is an objective fact, no possible situation I may fall into, or any possible justification I may offer can ever change this fact. This is my primary problem with realism, it does not consider the consequences of following the "objective facts". If I were to face a situation similar to the trolley problem, I would be stuck with inaction. I would argue (as most would) "killing is right, if it saves more lives than it takes" at least for the trolley problem anyway.

The issue I have here is from objectivity you jump to categorical imperatives. Thus you seem to really be skeptic of Deontological morality. Consequential ethics is also "objective."It just looks at the ends, not the means.

Fkkize took the liberty of pointing that out to me as well. Although I still don't understand how the statement "we should maximize well-being" can be justified without invoking personal opinion.

Did you read sidewalker's response to your question? He listed some of the points I had in mind when I asked what "self-interest" entails.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 11:03:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/26/2015 10:03:55 PM, Kozu wrote:
Moral realism has always seemed like an outrageous concept to me. Relativism seems as evident to me as the sun rising tomorrow morning. Despite this, I am challenged by the fact that the majority of philosophers are realists. I'm just an otaku, so I find it hard to believe I'v got reality more "figured out" than the majority of philosophers. Because of this, I'v been recently trying to better understand realism and why these philosophers have taken this position. So for this thread, I'd like for any of the realists here to try and convince me to switch to realism. First I'm going to explain how I reached the conclusion that moral relativism is true.

Lets define morality.
"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

I ask myself, "What appears to be the foundation of morality"? "What is it that determines if something is right or wrong".
I answer myself " Well it's based on individual self-interest of course", "I only do the things I want because I think they're "good" for me", and "Anything I don't want is "bad"".

I am thus led to believe that morality is contingent on self-interest, because that is what causes morality to manifest in the first place. If there was no human perception in the world (or anything like it) then there would be no concept of right or wrong. So relativism being the foundation of morality seems like the logical conclusion.

Now, here's my problems with realism

Objective is defined as "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"

1. Lets pretend someone tells me "Killing is wrong". If this is an objective fact, no possible situation I may fall into, or any possible justification I may offer can ever change this fact. This is my primary problem with realism, it does not consider the consequences of following the "objective facts". If I were to face a situation similar to the trolley problem, I would be stuck with inaction. I would argue (as most would) "killing is right, if it saves more lives than it takes" at least for the trolley problem anyway.

2. A more perplexing issue is how can something void of personal feelings or opinions actually determine what is right or wrong. Rocks don't have a concept of right or wrong, so how could an objective fact actually say "x is good/bad". What sort of entity is "goodness" and "wrongness" in the first place? How can anything other than a self-interested thing, say something is good or bad?

3. There is no evidence of moral facts. We can't even test for them. I perosnally can't even imagine what they would be like

Hopefully someone will explain to me a problem in my line of thinking. If there is one. Other relativists can also comment with criticism or agreement.

Many philosophers support the view of moral realism. But it's wrong to say that this position is the right position (you yourself present excellent reasons as to why morality has to be objective). I think you're confused on this issue.

It's better to say that moral realism is simply more popular with our society and so philosophers that defend this position are elevated in the eyes of our society. But society has been wrong before, and on this issue, it's definitely also wrong.

Moral relativism is what, in the end, lines up with realities and facts-of-life of our world. You shouldn't kill another human because if you do, you'll be perceived as a danger to society--someone that threatens stability and the status quo. (Nevermind that you're encouraged to kill enemy soldiers on the battleground in time of war.)

You shouldn't lie because you're deceiving people around you who have a vested interest in knowing the truth. (Of course, sometimes we're encouraged to life for the "greater good". I've had this talk when I was a teenager with certain adults.)

Morality is relative--but it's suppose to serve a purpose.

The moral realists simply occupy a greater majority in society, and this is why that view of morality wins out. But that doesn't mean their right.

They're not.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 11:11:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You might say that morality and laws materialize out of the need for order to exist in society (order allows groups of individuals to live together).

But frequently you can see what happens to this set of morality and laws when different societies with competing and different interests collide.

Morality, like social laws, exists to serve a natural social function: to increase stability and comfort.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 6:01:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/1/2015 7:36:04 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/1/2015 5:46:44 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 8/27/2015 7:47:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/27/2015 6:45:22 PM, Kozu wrote:

But why do they even think that to begin with? What is it that suggests to them that right and wrong are determined from belief-independent entities.
The argument I presented in that other thread would be a good start.

I'll have to go back to them again.

That exactly what it means. How can rightness or wrongness exist without it being proposed by something with a mind, and self interest.
In the same way the external world exists without anyone perceiving it, I suppose.

That's vague.
That is at least how I imagine it.

Do you "know" any moral facts?
Sure, I know that murder is generally wrong. Of course not with 100% certainty, but it is hard to imagine what would disprove this. Assuming realism of course.

I always thought that realism implied some form of deontological ethics, where the actions themselves matter and not the consequences.
Fortunately not lol. Utilitarianism is far from relativism of any kind.

Objectively saying murder is generally wrong, sounds like "1+1 is generally 2",
Generally not always, since there are of course instances where one would have to kill a dictator to save a hundreds of people from executed or something.

but if realism can work with utilitarianism I wouldn't be so resistant to accept it.
Good to hear I guess.

If good can't be defined, how can a moral fact even label anything good.
That fact that it cannot be given a precise definition does not mean that it cannot be understood. Everyone reacts in some way when he is told that X is good. We can understand it, we just can't properly define it.

I understand its just their intuitive reaction, not a reflection of some ambiguous objective fact.
In some cases, of course. But also when I consider all the arguments, make up my mind and sincerely judge something to be good I will experience this "ought-to-be-done"-ness that is so hard to define without loosing a part of its force.

That experience sounds just like an intuitive judgement, or an instinctive reaction. Both of those phenomena can explain that "ought-to-be-done"-ness feeling. I'm not seeing the factor that leads you to believe its something more.

Neither of them can be tested for or proven. There are no objective facts about either, we made them up for our own convenience.
The Quine-Putnam indispensability argument and other reasons was enough to convince ~33% of philosophers and probably even more mathematicians that numbers exist. If they are just convenience, then you must be able to find a way of doing science without them.

Never did figure out why I wouldn't be allowed to do science if I was a nominalist. I'm sure the 37% of philosophers that do follow it, can.
It's not that they aren't allowed it is a challenge to nominalists: find a way to do science without numbers. And I think nominalism can't do that.

I suppose we evolved in a way such that our normative beliefs are somewhat in line with normative facts. From then on it's a matter of regular epistemology.

They're "somewhat" in line? How do I know which normative beliefs are in line?
Finding that out is the task of moral epistemology. Those beliefs which are most certainly true are most certainly in line.

Other then being able to discuss morality, what else is essential for moral discourse? I wanted to say in your other thread that it isn't necessary that moral statements purport objectivity, even if we want them to.

I honestly don't see anything that realism accounts for. What crucial question(s) is realism accounting for?
For example, realism makes sense of moral disagreement, wich subjectivism and many other views do not. It takes the commitments of moral discourse, such as objectivity seriously (I acknowledge that you disagree and we can of course discuss that, but I am merely explaining this from my point of view). It is, as far as I am aware, the only view that makes sense of moral progress. The possibility of which I count among the many commitments of moral discourse.

I guess you could reply to my profile comment here, since i basically asked you the same thing there.
Guess I'll do that next.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2015 6:38:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/2/2015 6:01:52 PM, Kozu wrote:
In some cases, of course. But also when I consider all the arguments, make up my mind and sincerely judge something to be good I will experience this "ought-to-be-done"-ness that is so hard to define without loosing a part of its force.

That experience sounds just like an intuitive judgement, or an instinctive reaction.
Sitting down thinking before coming to a conclusion seems to me like the exact opposite of intuition or instinct.

Both of those phenomena can explain that "ought-to-be-done"-ness feeling. I'm not seeing the factor that leads you to believe its something more.
I'm not sure in what sense I am seeing something more. I have not claimed that the "ought-to-be-done"-ness feeling is indicative of moral realism.

It's disappointing there's no satisfying answers.
In metaethics there is no view that satisfies every aspect. In the end you have to decide which view seems most plausible and, well, you just happen to ask the questions that realism cannot answer beyond any doubt.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic