Moral Realism...

[Machinist]

I'm not going to drop any uneducated comments on this thread, but I have a question for you Seer about Moral Realism: When you say "realism", you mean "real", as in something objective and verifiable. I have come across this term many times in reading, and in the book I mentioned on the other thread. It still seems that the concept has yet to synthesize into full understanding. Sometimes exploring the opposite helps shed light on things. In contrast to Moral Realism, what would Moral Idealism be? I would like to be able to talk about this fluently and understand it. I see where you are going with it but I can't see the end right now.

[seer]

Of the links you gave me to WLC debates, one where the comments section seemed to think the atheist had done well was this debate with Shelly Kagan. In the first 20 minutes of that debate, Kagan sets out his own explanation of his moral views and why it entails moral realism. What about his views do you take issue with?

So basically Kagan said that rape is wrong and wrong because it harms. But why is harm wrong? He then he claims that if you organized a society according to moral principles he agrees with, then that society is rational. But that is begging the question, why would a totalitarian and often brutal society where human rights don't exist like China be irrational? Kagan's personal objection does not make it irrational. I think Craig made a good point in quoting the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse, that morality is merely the by product of the evolutionary process. Anything more is an illusion. Secondly, even if objective moral truths did exist, what claim do they have on us? And this to me is the more important point. Imagine a society where they have laws on the books against rape or murder or theft but no mechanisms of enforcement. Those laws would be completely toothless and immaterial. Really not worth discussing.

[Starlight]

Of the links you gave me to WLC debates, one where the comments section seemed to think the atheist had done well was this debate with Shelly Kagan. In the first 20 minutes of that debate, Kagan sets out his own explanation of his moral views and why it entails moral realism. What about his views do you take issue with?

[seer]

Can someone here make the case for how moral duties and moral knowledge have an objective basis. And if they are objective how they have any moral authority over the individual?