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]

Here's a quick primer on moral ontology for those who need it: -
Moral realism = there are moral facts.
Moral objectivism = moral statements refer to objective features of the world.
Moral cognitivism = moral statements can be true or false.
Theism = moral facts are grounded in God.
Platonism = moral facts are grounded in abstract objects.

Moral anti-realism = there are no moral facts.
Moral subjectivism = moral statements do not refer to objective features of the world.
Moral nihilism = all moral statements are false.
Moral non-cognitivism = moral statements are neither true nor false.

[Paprika]

Theism = moral facts are grounded in God.

Hardly.

[robertb]

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?

I would use calculus.

Solve for the limit of x as x approaches a constant.

x = a moral action

constant = the objectively most correct moral action (the moral fact of the matter)

This would be where these objective moral facts exist.

As far as obligation is concerned, I think you may be mis-construing legality with morality. To be moral is to act correctly regardless of obligation to do so.

[seer]

I would use calculus.

Solve for the limit of x as x approaches a constant.

x = a moral action

constant = the objectively most correct moral action (the moral fact of the matter)

This would be where these objective moral facts exist.

As far as obligation is concerned, I think you may be mis-construing legality with morality. To be moral is to act correctly regardless of obligation to do so.

This doesn't make sense to me. I'm still not getting where a moral fact exists. Can you reword it or use a different analogy?

[seer]

Platonism = moral facts are grounded in abstract objects.

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

[robertb]

This doesn't make sense to me. I'm still not getting where a moral fact exists. Can you reword it or use a different analogy?

Which do you think that it is an objectively better moral act: to help an old lady across the street, or to push her into oncoming traffic?

[shunyadragon]

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

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.

[seer]

Which do you think that it is an objectively better moral act: to help an old lady across the street, or to push her into oncoming traffic?

It depends. If I was an ISIS fighter or a Nazi I might think it would be objectively better to push an old Jewish lady into on coming traffic.

[robertb]

It depends. If I was an ISIS fighter or a Nazi I might think it would be objectively better to push an old Jewish lady into on coming traffic.

I actually disagree with this completely.

Regardless, I asked what YOU think is the objectively better moral act.

[shunyadragon]

Here's a quick primer on moral ontology for those who need it: -
Moral realism = there are moral facts.
Moral objectivism = moral statements refer to objective features of the world.
Moral cognitivism = moral statements can be true or false.
Theism = moral facts are grounded in God.
Platonism = moral facts are grounded in abstract objects.

Moral anti-realism = there are no moral facts.
Moral subjectivism = moral statements do not refer to objective features of the world.
Moral nihilism = all moral statements are false.
Moral non-cognitivism = moral statements are neither true nor false.

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

[seer]

I actually disagree with this completely.

Regardless, I asked what YOU think is the objectively better moral act.

You may disagree but why? What I subjectively think is immaterial. If my moral sense comes from cultural indoctrination then there is nothing objective about it.

[robertb]

You may disagree but why? What I subjectively think is immaterial. If my moral sense comes from cultural indoctrination then there is nothing objective about it.

I thought you wished to better understand my analogy? If so, avoiding to answer my question with irrelevant digressions isn't going to help.

[seer]

I thought you wished to better understand my analogy? If so, avoiding to answer my question with irrelevant digressions isn't going to help.

No, I'm trying to figure out why this position holds up.

[robertb]

No, I'm trying to figure out why this position holds up.

Why which position holds up? Realism or the relativism you keep trying to divert to?