Moral Realism...

[siam]

[QUOTE=seer;n1256666]

So what? That is not the point. For Rawls, for experiment to work, he must assume that all men would be risk averse. That is both ahistorical and an assumption that can not be demonstrated. As far as a majority being exploited for the sake a few, China seems to be doing quite well with the majority of wealth being funneled to their party's oligarchy. With no human rights or equality I might add...[/QUOTE

most men are risk-averse---I think that would be a correct assumption.
The majority of any population simply want to live their lives in peace. In a dog-eat-dog world (or man destroy man world) there would not be much peace....since everyone would want to fight to be top dog. The only way a system would work is if the majority of the population accepts/buys into "the system".

Wealth imbalance is not just a problem for China---it is happening all over the world. Our capitalist "system" has a systemic problem. It is structured for stagnation rather than flow. As long as we accept that "this is the only way"(buy into it)---we cannot come up with a creative solution.

Human rights and equality are also a global problem---democracy has not guaranteed equality/rights, in particular for those who lack the wealth (and therefore power) to influence the judicial and political "systems".

What is or is not "ahistorical" might be subjective?---you are approaching humanity from a Christian/original sin perspective---but this is a minority view in terms of global religio-philosophical understanding of human nature.

[seer]

It doesn't seem to me that there is any significant difference between the following two positions:

1. The truth or falsity of moral propositions is dependent on the attitudes of people, but (at least some of) those attitudes are determined by objective facts about human nature. (a subset of ethical subjectivism)

2. Ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately. (moral realism)

How is the moral claim that rape is wrong an objective features of the world? How is that independent of subjective opinions?

[Stoic]

Even if there were common moral themes across cultures (which there are) that does not demonstrate moral realism. It could simply mean that the evolutionary process genetically predisposed us to particular behaviors. One could say that it is an objective fact that men morally act in specific ways, and these acts are cross cultural. But you can not leap to the claim that moral truths are objective in the sense that they are true or valid independent of what anyone thinks. As an example, if the majority of cultures and countries, came to believe that spousal rape was morally acceptable - it would be. There is no higher law or standard to mitigate against that view. We are the law. Unless you bring in a deity or something like Platonic forms.

It doesn't seem to me that there is any significant difference between the following two positions:

1. The truth or falsity of moral propositions is dependent on the attitudes of people, but (at least some of) those attitudes are determined by objective facts about human nature. (a subset of ethical subjectivism)

2. Ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately. (moral realism)

[seer]

Believing that there appears to be convergence / a common core of ideas, is not the same as having perfect knowledge of what that common core is precisely though. Perhaps in 100 years moral philosophers will have nailed it down fully. At the moment, the best I can do is loosely describe the cluster of ideas that seem to be in that area of convergence, that common core, and they are things like: Valuing others, benevolence, caring for others rather than harming them, fairness and treating others equitably, treating others as you would want to be treated, promoting the happiness and wellbeing of all. Whether this can be best described as a single underlying moral principle that gives rise to these multiple facets, or whether there are multiple moral principles here that multiple truths about the world give rise to, I am not sure.

But the ubiquity of these themes across cultures and apparent convergence toward them across time, makes me believe that there must be facts about the world and about humanity that give rise to this common core of moral ideas. And hence I describe that common core as being 'objective' and 'real', in contrast to 'arbitrary' or 'subjective'. Looking at surveys of modern philosophers on these subjects, it makes me think they mostly hold a similar view - they appear to generally agree that such a non-subjective common moral core does really exist (and hence report being 'moral realists'), but they are a bit uncertain or in disagreement about the details of nailing down precisely what that core actually consists of or how best to construct the internal logic of it and the connections between its parts.

Even if there were common moral themes across cultures (which there are) that does not demonstrate moral realism. It could simply mean that the evolutionary process genetically predisposed us to particular behaviors. One could say that it is an objective fact that men morally act in specific ways, and these acts are cross cultural. But you can not leap to the claim that moral truths are objective in the sense that they are true or valid independent of what anyone thinks. As an example, if the majority of cultures and countries, came to believe that spousal rape was morally acceptable - it would be. There is no higher law or standard to mitigate against that view. We are the law. Unless you bring in a deity or something like Platonic forms.

[seer]

dog eat dog---any system based on zero-sum is going to self-destruct---its like a natural law or something---so a dog-eat-dog system could exist for a time---but eventually will collapse. Such systems do not add any benefit to human survival. Look at Burma---today the military is cracking down on Buddhist Burmese---yesterday it was Muslim Burmese. A system that is built on survival of the oppressor (identity) over the oppressed means that it becomes necessary for there to be some group that falls into the category of oppressed....Had the Burmese focused more on the concept of the equality of all human beings---which would have led to the equality of all Burmese peoples, then---the systemic divisions of superiority/inferiority---leading to abuse, might have been avoided......?.....

The same can be said of accumulations of wealth and/or power---such systems come at a cost. The cost of the majority being exploited for the sake of benefits to a few. Such systems self-destruct when there are no more resources to exploit. (but they leave a lot of harm behind). Systems that have a flow incorporated in them last longer because the flow replenishes the "systems" ---so an economic system that has a bi-directional flow of wealth will last much longer and bring more benefits than an economic system that is unidirectional (wealth flows in one direction---towards the rich). The same rules apply to all other systems---systems that have inherent balance will create benefit and last longer than systems that are imbalanced.

So what? That is not the point. For Rawls, for experiment to work, he must assume that all men would be risk averse. That is both ahistorical and an assumption that can not be demonstrated. As far as a majority being exploited for the sake a few, China seems to be doing quite well with the majority of wealth being funneled to their party's oligarchy. With no human rights or equality I might add...

[seer]

There is a big difference between moral nihilism (nothing is morally right or wrong) and moral non-objectivism.

As I said, I'm not a moral nihilist.

The point is both positions reject objective moral truths, and that is what Star said was irrational. Unless I misunderstood him.

[Stoic]

You are a moral relativist, you will fall into the same category. Remember the moral nihilist simply does not believe in objective moral values and duties. Like you...

There is a big difference between moral nihilism (nothing is morally right or wrong) and moral non-objectivism.

As I said, I'm not a moral nihilist.

[siam]

It does not have to be a dictator in order to defeat the premise. Men like to gamble, take chances. Perhaps one would prefer a more dog eat dog world with the possibility of gaining much personal wealth and power. Rather than the safety of Rawls' fairness world. One does not have to reach for dictatorial power.

dog eat dog---any system based on zero-sum is going to self-destruct---its like a natural law or something---so a dog-eat-dog system could exist for a time---but eventually will collapse. Such systems do not add any benefit to human survival. Look at Burma---today the military is cracking down on Buddhist Burmese---yesterday it was Muslim Burmese. A system that is built on survival of the oppressor (identity) over the oppressed means that it becomes necessary for there to be some group that falls into the category of oppressed....Had the Burmese focused more on the concept of the equality of all human beings---which would have led to the equality of all Burmese peoples, then---the systemic divisions of superiority/inferiority---leading to abuse, might have been avoided......?.....

The same can be said of accumulations of wealth and/or power---such systems come at a cost. The cost of the majority being exploited for the sake of benefits to a few. Such systems self-destruct when there are no more resources to exploit. (but they leave a lot of harm behind). Systems that have a flow incorporated in them last longer because the flow replenishes the "systems" ---so an economic system that has a bi-directional flow of wealth will last much longer and bring more benefits than an economic system that is unidirectional (wealth flows in one direction---towards the rich). The same rules apply to all other systems---systems that have inherent balance will create benefit and last longer than systems that are imbalanced.

[Starlight]

I think it could be argued that if you had a bunch of different randomly selected groups of human beings, the moral rules that they would come up with would have a lot in common, and this could reasonably be attributed to there being certain facts about human nature that would be expected given our common evolutionary background. Sure, there might be outliers, but they could be explained as the result of defective genes, or a traumatic early life. But I think the best one could get out of this is that morality is "partly objective, and partly subjective".

I tend to generally agree with this. And it is very similar to my own general approach to the issue.

I think there are things about the world which result in significant convergence of moral values. There is variation of course, but it seems to be variation within certain constraints. Looking across history, I see convergence, not divergence, of moral values over time. Looking across cultures I see variations but around common themes.

So I tend toward saying that the common themes and general convergence indicate there are a particular set of moral ideas that are non-arbitrary, and which arise universally across time and cultures as a result of certain facts about humans and the world.

But each individual culture seems to add to that common core of ideas, many and various different additional ideas that vary from culture to culture. Those parts are obviously subjective and arbitrary, and to the extent that they show a pattern over time, the pattern is that cultures who think hard about morality have a tendency to discard them as arbitrary traditions of the past. Cultures being challenged to think hard about morality seems to have a tendency to make their moral codes converge toward the common universal elements.

So I conclude that there seem to be objective and subjective components to people's moral codes. By 'objective' I in this sense mean 'universally held or close to it' and 'arising from facts about the world and human nature', and by 'subjective' I mean 'vary significantly from one culture to the next' and 'having arbitrary parts and ideas'.

In this sense I would describe myself as being a moral realist who believes in objective morality: I conclude that it is likely that among the different moral ideas of different cultures that there is a common core of moral ideas that are not as arbitrary as some of their other moral ideas and which are the way they are due to truths about the world and human nature.

Believing that there appears to be convergence / a common core of ideas, is not the same as having perfect knowledge of what that common core is precisely though. Perhaps in 100 years moral philosophers will have nailed it down fully. At the moment, the best I can do is loosely describe the cluster of ideas that seem to be in that area of convergence, that common core, and they are things like: Valuing others, benevolence, caring for others rather than harming them, fairness and treating others equitably, treating others as you would want to be treated, promoting the happiness and wellbeing of all. Whether this can be best described as a single underlying moral principle that gives rise to these multiple facets, or whether there are multiple moral principles here that multiple truths about the world give rise to, I am not sure.

But the ubiquity of these themes across cultures and apparent convergence toward them across time, makes me believe that there must be facts about the world and about humanity that give rise to this common core of moral ideas. And hence I describe that common core as being 'objective' and 'real', in contrast to 'arbitrary' or 'subjective'. Looking at surveys of modern philosophers on these subjects, it makes me think they mostly hold a similar view - they appear to generally agree that such a non-subjective common moral core does really exist (and hence report being 'moral realists'), but they are a bit uncertain or in disagreement about the details of nailing down precisely what that core actually consists of or how best to construct the internal logic of it and the connections between its parts.

[seer]

Not sure if yr comment makes sense...?.....
In order to be a dictator---a group of people would want to have a dictator---one cannot be a dictator all by oneself. ...right?
therefore---in such a society---there are a group of people who do not want to be a dictator but prefer to follow a dictator. If a society were structured so that every member could become a dictator---then it would self-destruct. (zero-sum)
So---one would need to structure a system or society in which only one person--the most cunning, or bad, or strong, or...etc would/could become a dictator and all others would be followers. (those who buy into it as a construct)

It does not have to be a dictator in order to defeat the premise. Men like to gamble, take chances. Perhaps one would prefer a more dog eat dog world with the possibility of gaining much personal wealth and power. Rather than the safety of Rawls' fairness world. One does not have to reach for dictatorial power.

[seer]

Not necessarily. I'm not a moral nihilist.

You are a moral relativist, you will fall into the same category. Remember the moral nihilist simply does not believe in objective moral values and duties. Like you...

[Stoic]

That would make you irrational according to Star...

Not necessarily. I'm not a moral nihilist.

[seer]

You make a good point, and that's why I think of morality as subjective, rather than objective.

That would make you irrational according to Star...

[seer]

You brought it up, when you said, "So there is no accountability, no mechanisms of enforcement."

Nice of you to point out that the means of accountability and mechanisms of enforcement are present whether or not moral realism is the case, though.

Stoic the point is those mechanisms have nothing to do with moral realism. They would be apply even with moral relativism. Or a religious culture. There is nothing inherent in MR that leads to accountability.

[Stoic]

Which is true whether moral realism is the case or not. So why bring it up in the first place?

You brought it up, when you said, "So there is no accountability, no mechanisms of enforcement."

Nice of you to point out that the means of accountability and mechanisms of enforcement are present whether or not moral realism is the case, though.