Moral Realism?

[seer]

My only prior post in this thread was based upon a misunderstanding of your OP. My apologies.

No problem.

[Jedidiah]

Recently 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:



The questions are, where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist?

My only prior post in this thread was based upon a misunderstanding of your OP. My apologies.

[Paprika]

Yes, and in theism, God is the ontological source of moral facts.

In some forms of theism, yes, but not in all.

Simply stating the opposite is begging the question.

Nah, it's just matching your assertion with another assertion.

[Rational Gaze]

Theism hardly entails that moral facts are grounded in God, merely that a god or gods exist.

Yes, and in theism, God is the ontological source of moral facts. Simply stating the opposite is begging the question.

[Paprika]

Such articulate prose. The vaulting ambition of the writer. Oh, Icarus. Fly not too close to the sun lest thy waxy wings should melt.

Conciseness.

Theism hardly entails that moral facts are grounded in God, merely that a god or gods exist.

[seer]

there is no fact about the physical world that can lead us to moral facts, leaving us with moral platonism.

Well then, do abstract objects actually exist? Apart from "minds?"

[Rational Gaze]

Hardly.

Such articulate prose. The vaulting ambition of the writer. Oh, Icarus. Fly not too close to the sun lest thy waxy wings should melt.

[Rational Gaze]

This is far to simplistic to be real. First, the nature of our physical existence is simply exists as it is regardless of how different philosophies 'imagine' it is. Second, other views such as; Immanent Realism, Conceptualism and Nominalism are possible.

Nominalism in regards to moral facts is the same as moral nihilism or moral non-cognitivism, and so clearly are not examples of non-theistic accounts of moral facts. Conceptualism in regards to moral facts is the same as moral subjectivism, according to which, there are no moral facts. Immanent realism is simply the position that some universals exist in the physical world, whereas some other universals do not, and, as anybody with more than half a brain knows, there is no fact about the physical world that can lead us to moral facts, leaving us with moral platonism.

[Rational Gaze]

Best explanation: morals and ethics are simply social and cultural constraints to maintain a family and community for the survival of the human species.

By 'morals and ethics' do you mean 'moral facts' or 'moral beliefs?' Because being able to explain moral beliefs does not undercut belief in moral facts.

[seer]

That does seem to be your question.

So how about that answer.

Answer to what?

[robertb]

Right, so how does my opinion relate to an objective moral truth?

That does seem to be your question.

So how about that answer.

[seer]

Indeed I did.

Right, so how does my opinion relate to an objective moral truth?

[robertb]

But you asked about my opinion on a moral question.

Indeed I did.

[seer]

I already explained it in my first post on this thread.

You said that you didn't understand my analogy, so I have been trying to walk you through it.

But you asked about my opinion on a moral question.

[robertb]

No Realism. Look at my opening definition:



OK, key here is this line: and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them

So when you ask me about pushing the old lady into the road my answer is based on my beliefs, or upbringing. How does that moral ideal exist independently?

I already explained it in my first post on this thread.

You said that you didn't understand my analogy, so I have been trying to walk you through it.