Originally posted by Yttrium
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Moral Realism?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostYou are dodging the question:
Do you think the OP's definition of moral realism is correct?
Because they're features of the world that don't depend on mind-dependent views. You've been told this before.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYou are missing the point.
Do you think the OP's definition of moral realism is correct?
Yes I agree that you, and other moral realists, believe that your theory accounts for objective moral truths. The question I have been asking is how are these moral facts actually objective.
Demonstrate how that is so.
You keep saying I'm moving the goal posts but isn't that the whole idea behind moral realism - that moral facts exist, and that they are mind independent? And Jichard you have not shown how that is possible. How your belief is actually true.
(http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil12...ctivism.html):
2. Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. Objectivist theories tend to come in two sorts:
(i) Duty Based Theories (or Deontological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is morally right or wrong is the kind of act it is.
E.g., Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) thought that all acts should be judged according to a rule he called the Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim [i.e., rule] whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." That is, he thought the only kind of act one should ever commit is one that could be willed to be a universal law.
(ii) Consequentialist Theories (or Teleological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is right or wrong are its consequences.
Utilitarianism is the best known sort of Consequentialism. Its best known defender is John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall. (The wrong thing to do is anything else.)
And none of what you wrote answers the question:
Do you think the OP's definition of moral realism is correct?
By the way, your question was answered in the very link you posted in the OP. So you're (once agan) linking to stuff you've neither fully read nor understood
If so, then you're committed to accepting that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one; so you can drop your claims about moral realism being subjective.
Try to answer the question honestly.
OK, so you don't know if Moral realism is true or not?
So, once again:
Do you think the OP's definition of moral realism is correct?Last edited by Jichard; 05-17-2015, 12:05 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhats objectively true is the result of moral imperatives, not the moral imperatives themselves.
Thou shalt not kill need not be a mind independent, objective law unto itself in order that the intended outcome of its use be objective truth.
Let's say that Roderick knows that Irving has murdered a lot of people, and he sees every sign that Irving is going to keep murdering a lot of people. Roderick has the opportunity to kill Irving to stop him, but he doesn't, because he follows a moral of not killing people. Then Irving goes and murders a lot more people. What is the objective truth you might see in this situation? If the answer is that stuff happens, which is objectively true, then I don't see a point to moral realism.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYou are missing the point. Yes I agree that you, and other moral realists, believe that your theory accounts for objective moral truths. The question I have been asking is how are these moral facts actually objective. Demonstrate how that is so. You keep saying I'm moving the goal posts but isn't that the whole idea behind moral realism - that moral facts exist, and that they are mind independent? And Jichard you have not shown how that is possible. How your belief is actually true.
OK, so you don't know if Moral realism is true or not?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostYou've apparently contradiced yourself, in your apologetic zeal to avoid conclusions you don't like. So do you think the OP's definition of moral realism is correct? If so, then you're committed to accepting that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one; so you can drop your claims about moral realism being subjective.
You still don't seem to get this. Moral realism is an objectivist moral position. Period. The fact that it's a made-up idea is irrelevant. Every idea human's ever had (including Christianity) is made up. That has no bearing on whether those ideas are objectively true or not. To explain this to you for the umpteenth time: the "objective/subjective" has to do with in virtue of what moral claims, moral theories, etc. are true or false, not on whether humans make up those claims, theories, etc. To say otherwise is to commit a use/mention mistake. Take a non-moral example: "mammals exist". That claim is objectively true since it's true in virtue of the existence of various organism. Saying humans made up the idea that "mammals exist" does nothing to change this.
Leave a comment:
-
BTW If God is either a moral agent or the source of moral standards and a person follows God’s moral pronouncements unthinkingly then that person abdicates his own moral responsibility to act as an independent moral agent. That is a sin. The point of being a moral agent is that you are morally compelled to use judgement including judgement of your own God’s standards. Your thinking must be revisionist in nature or you are not moral.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostRecently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind. He suggested or inferred that moral realism was preferable because it posed that objective moral facts actually exist;
Here is a definition that I think is correct:
Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Therefore, moral judgments describe moral facts, which are as certain in their own way as mathematical facts.Originally posted by seer View PostAnd the theory of moral realism is subjective, mind dependent, because it expresses an idea that you like.Originally posted by seer View PostAnd in my OP I was not agreeing that moral realism is actually objective. It of course is not. It is just a made up idea. Not based in reality.
Please try to answer honestly, instead of just saying whatever you think is useful for your current apologetic goal
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostSo you are unaware that a creator is what gives an item/thing it's objective existence?
OK, let me explain it, however you will have to assume that a creator God exists for this thought theory.
P1) The Universe has a creator and creates the Universe because of his reasons.
P2) The Universe exists as a factuality because of the creators reasons.
C1) Therefore the creators reasons are factual reasons for the Universes existence
C2) Therefore the creators reasons are objective in concerns to the Universes existence.
In reality on the basis that P1 is correct then the rest follows completely logically and can not be disputed.
First, C2 falls afoul of what "objective" means in the context of meta-ethics when discussing moral realism. Your argument treats factuality as entailing being objective, which makes no sense since there can be subjective facts.
Second, just because a reason acts as a cause, does not mean the reason is objective. Subjective reasons can act as causes as well.
Third, the argument does nothing to show that divine command is a moral objectivist position. The argument doesn't even address moral objectivism or moral subjectivism. Divine command theory still meets the standard definition of moral subjectivism.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOK, then once and for all demonstrate that moral realism is empirically true. You claim that there are moral facts, show how these are mind independent.
"Some have observed in defense of Moral Rationalism, for example, that if an agent does something we consider morally wrong, then we blame (or resent) him. But blame, these philosophers claim, involves the judgment that the agent had reasons not to do what he did. Consequently blame is unwarranted when such judgments are unwarranted (Nagel 1970, Smith 1994). Therefore, since moral wrongdoing is sufficient to warrant blame, moral obligations must entail reasons (section 2.3).""
And in my OP I was not agreeing that moral realism is actually objective. It of course is not. It is just a made up idea. Not based in reality.
You've been told this so many times, that I think it's dishonest for you to repeat your mistake without addressing the rebuttal.
Also, please stop confusing "objectivist" with "true". There are plenty of moral objectivist positions, some of which are true and other's of which are false. You claiming that "[n]ot based in reality" has no bearing on whether they are objectivist or not.Last edited by Jichard; 05-16-2015, 10:47 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOK, then once and for all demonstrate that moral realism is empirically true. You claim that there are moral facts, show how these are mind independent. And in my OP I was not agreeing that moral realism is actually objective. It of course is not. It is just a made up idea. Not based in reality.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Jichard View Post
Nonsense, and another instance of your committing the use/mention mistake, even though you've been called on this before. The "objective/subjective" issue is not about whether minds make the theory or whether one likes the theory or whatever ever other nonsensical stuff you're going on about. Otherwise, every position would be subjective, since minds make the position or someone likes the position or whatever. Instead, the "objective/subjective" distinction is about in virtue of what are the theory's claims true or false. Thus, for example, evolutionary theory is objectively true, since it's true in virtue of mind-independent stuff. It would therefore be silly to say that evolutionary theory is subjective because it's made by humans or because it expresses an idea that people like. Those have nothing to do with whether or not it's subjective. Parallel points for what you've said. You've had this explained to you before. Please stop pretending otherwise.
And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one. You're apparently so desperate to say whatever you deem necessary for your apologetic position, that you don't even check if you're being consistent with yourself. As I predicted.Last edited by seer; 05-16-2015, 05:12 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ana Dragule View PostI suppose one could argue that God's law expresses moral realism in that it expresses the relationship between things and a proper order for themOriginally posted by Darth Ovious View PostAlso I'll post this by the master who taught me on this subject and coincidently the reason I found TWeb in the first place. A.S.A. Jones.I would think that the designer of any instrument or creature would be the one to consult in matters of the design and purpose of his design.
Yet acting because of obligations is only one of the lower ways of acting morally. There is yet a more excellent way.Last edited by Paprika; 05-16-2015, 04:31 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostJichard your posts are simply confusing. I will try again.
I see nothing but assertion here.
How does it follow that one is then obligated? How do "reasons" necessarily lead to "obligations?"
"Some have observed in defense of Moral Rationalism, for example, that if an agent does something we consider morally wrong, then we blame (or resent) him. But blame, these philosophers claim, involves the judgment that the agent had reasons not to do what he did. Consequently blame is unwarranted when such judgments are unwarranted (Nagel 1970, Smith 1994). Therefore, since moral wrongdoing is sufficient to warrant blame, moral obligations must entail reasons (section 2.3).""
On your say so?
Does the anti-realist find obligation here? Who is correct?
And if one is actually obligated how is it that men, in many cases, do not know that and act otherwise?
Which brings us back to one of my original questions - of what earthly good is this theory? Besides being an academic exercise?
And the theory of moral realism is subjective, mind dependent, because it expresses an idea that you like. As opposed to let's say anti-realism.
And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one. You're apparently so desperate to say whatever you deem necessary for your apologetic position, that you don't even check if you're being consistent with yourself. As I predicted.Last edited by Jichard; 05-16-2015, 04:14 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Rational Gaze View PostExcept in Divine Command Theory, God's commands reflect God's nature, and God's nature cannot change. Thus, it would not be subjective.
So pointing out that God's nature is unchanging does nothing to show that DCT is a form of moral objectivism.
Theism does entail moral realism, since there are no theistic positions that are logically compatible with moral realism.
"For example, one can have subjectivist theistic positions such as divine command theory. Similarly, one can have a theistic position on which God is not morally perfect (ex: dystheism) and moral subjectivism is true, or on which God instantiates no moral properties and moral nihilism is true. Moral Platonism would be a form of moral non-naturalism. There are naturalistic, non-theistic version of moral realism."
Similarly, there are no non-naturalist positions that are logically compatible with moral realism. This is pretty basic stuff.
Yes. The existence of imbeciles who believe logically contradictory things does little to change this fact.
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
15 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 09:46 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
148 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
102 responses
555 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 11:43 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
154 responses
1,017 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
04-12-2024, 12:39 PM
|
Leave a comment: