Moral Realism?

[Rational Gaze]

Well that is my question, in a godless universe, how can moral facts exist? Where do they exist?

They don't. The only non-theistic alternative is platonism, and that is problematic for reasons already outlined.

[Rational Gaze]

If you don’t understand God you can’t use Him to explain anything else. “How great is God—beyond our understanding!” What you are doing here is just saying what you want to be true – wishful thinking.

More question begging.

[shunyadragon]

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?

The problem with Moral Realism remains that morals and ethics are human social attributes, and not God's Law. Morals and ethics are not subjective nor objective in and of themselves, and there are no moral facts (?). Morals and Ethics may or may not be based on God's Law.

[firstfloor]

In theism, God is the ontological basis for moral truths.

If you don’t understand God you can’t use Him to explain anything else. “How great is God—beyond our understanding!” What you are doing here is just saying what you want to be true – wishful thinking.

[Jedidiah]

Moral realism is simply a way of saying we need to update the useless morality of Scripture. It is false.

[seer]

Which is precisely why theism is preferable to platonism. Platonism does not adequately provide an answer to moral epistemology, only moral ontology. Whereas theism provides a satisfactory account of moral ontology and moral epistemology.

Well that is my question, in a godless universe, how can moral facts exist? Where do they exist?

[Rational Gaze]

They don’t. God (assuming He exists) is a moral agent just like we are. Moral facts or standards do not exist. The reason you would refer to God for advice in moral matters is only if you thought he was qualified because of His greater experience and not because he embodies goodness or some such thing. A lot of God worshipers get this wrong for some reason and say daft things like ‘God is love’.

You are simply begging the question here. In theism, God is the ontological basis for moral truths. Simply claiming that they don't exist is question begging.

[Rational Gaze]

Some do say that moral realism can be traced back to Plato.

Moral realism is the position that there are moral facts. Platonist philosophy is merely one form of moral realism. Theism is another. In both, moral statements can be true.

And I don't see how we would be, in the least, obligated, to follow these moral facts - even if we knew them.

Which is precisely why theism is preferable to platonism. Platonism does not adequately provide an answer to moral epistemology, only moral ontology. Whereas theism provides a satisfactory account of moral ontology and moral epistemology.

[Ana Dragule]

I suppose one could argue that God's law expresses moral realism in that it expresses the relationship between things and a proper order for them, and as the only omnipotent being would be the one to best express what that morality would look like? e.g. People are made in God's image and therefore are treated as something special, i.e. to be loved.

For God to request something to be otherwise would be to undermine the nature and plan for creation and thus impose on Him a morality contrary to what He would request of us? E.g. honesty, love, etc.

[firstfloor]

... where do these moral facts exist?

They don’t. God (assuming He exists) is a moral agent just like we are. Moral facts or standards do not exist. The reason you would refer to God for advice in moral matters is only if you thought he was qualified because of His greater experience and not because he embodies goodness or some such thing. A lot of God worshipers get this wrong for some reason and say daft things like ‘God is love’.

[seer]

Actually, no, it doesn't make sense to say ethics is subjective God.

Well that was his point, I don't have a real problem with it, he he would have to flesh out his reasons.

Theism logically entails moral realism, so I don't see how it could possibly by an alternative to theism. Maybe he is referring to moral platonism; the idea that moral facts exist as actual objects? If so, then that is a viewpoint that isn't preferable to theism at all.

Some do say that moral realism can be traced back to Plato.

The irony is that, if moral platonism is true, then they either exist as abstract objects, in the mind's of humans, or not at all. Whereas, in theism, God is the ontological source of moral facts.

And I don't see how we would be, in the least, obligated, to follow these moral facts - even if we knew them.

[Rational Gaze]

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.

Actually, no, it doesn't make sense to say ethics is subjective God.

He suggested or inferred that moral realism was preferable because it posed that objective moral facts actually exist

Theism logically entails moral realism, so I don't see how it could possibly by an alternative to theism. Maybe he is referring to moral platonism; the idea that moral facts exist as actual objects? If so, then that is a viewpoint that isn't preferable to theism at all.

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

The irony is that, if moral platonism is true, then they either exist as abstract objects, in the mind's of humans, or not at all. Whereas, in theism, God is the ontological source of moral facts.

[Yttrium]

Well, Wikipedia has a page on it. It doesn't seem to get into any of those "facts", unfortunately.

I came across this line on the page: "Another advantage of moral realism is its capacity to resolve moral disagreements: If two moral beliefs contradict one another, realism says that they cannot both be right, and therefore everyone involved ought to be seeking out the right answer to resolve the disagreement." This breaks Moral Relativism, as far as I'm concerned. I see people with conflicting moral values, who both can subjectively justify themselves to be right, and no resolution can be found between the two; and I understand both points, and I see no objective solution. An obvious example (to me) is the abortion issue.

[seer]

I haven't heard of this idea prior to reading remarks about it in Apologetics here. It sounds dubious to me. I'd like to find out what some of these "objective moral "facts" are.

Me too.

[Yttrium]

I haven't heard of this idea prior to reading remarks about it in Apologetics here. It sounds dubious to me. I'd like to find out what some of these "objective moral "facts" are.