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
See more
See less

Moral Realism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
    Except in Divine Command Theory, God's commands reflect God's nature, and God's nature cannot change. Thus, it would not be subjective.
    The problem of objectivity here is the inconsistently of the apparent morality being communicated.


    Theism does entail moral realism, since there are no theistic positions that are logically compatible with moral realism. Similarly, there are no non-naturalist positions that are logically compatible with moral realism. This is pretty basic stuff.
    Any concept of moral realism from the atheist nor theist perspective is too inconsistent and anecdotal to be real.


    Yes. The existence of imbeciles who believe logically contradictory things does little to change this fact.
    On both sides of the imaginary fence.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-12-2015, 06:11 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
      Except in Divine Command Theory, God's commands reflect God's nature, and God's nature cannot change. Thus, it would not be subjective.
      Objectivisty/subjectivity is not whether about something can change or not. It's about in virtue of what something is true or false: in virtue of something mind-dependent or in virtue of something mind-independent. There are objective truths that are changing (ex: mammals exist) and subjective truths that are unchanging (ex: If X is pleasurable, then X causes pleasure).

      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.
      You didn't actually address the counterexamples. Try again:
      "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.
      Please look up moral Platonism, and the moral non-naturalism of people like G.E. Moore and Eric Wielenberg.

      Yes. The existence of imbeciles who believe logically contradictory things does little to change this fact.
      That's nice. Try to address what was written this time.
      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Jichard your posts are simply confusing. I will try again.



        I see nothing but assertion here.
        There's an argument. Please stop pretending otherwise. An argument doesn't become an assertion just because you can't address it.

        How does it follow that one is then obligated? How do "reasons" necessarily lead to "obligations?"
        Once again, the argument is right there. Please stop pretending otherwise.
        "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?
        No, based on the argument you deceptively pretend does not exist.

        Does the anti-realist find obligation here? Who is correct?
        Congratulations on pointing out that people disagree with other people. I guess you also think there's a problem because people disagree with me on the shape of the Earth, right?

        And if one is actually obligated how is it that men, in many cases, do not know that and act otherwise?
        For the love of all that is Holy, do you not understand that "X can be true" without people knowing or acting as if X is true? Is this the depth you're willing to go to?

        Which brings us back to one of my original questions - of what earthly good is this theory? Besides being an academic exercise?
        Meta-ethical positions address meta-ethical questions, just like scientific positions address scientific questions. That's what, in part, makes them useful. You've been told this before, over and over and... Please stop pretending otherwise.

        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.
        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 Jichard; 05-16-2015, 04:14 PM.
        "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Ana Dragule View Post
          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
          Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
          Also 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.
          Right. This is the way to go: ground morality in teleology, in the objective way that things were created and designed to flourish - properly interrelating with each other and relating with the Creator. The is-ought ditch, which ought never to have been dug in the first place, is thereby bridged: why one ought to do something is precisely because of the way things are.

          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.

          Comment


          • #65
            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.
            OK, 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.
            Last edited by seer; 05-16-2015, 05:12 PM.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              OK, 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.
              If it is true that the institution of a particular moral law, such as "thou shalt not kill" makes the world a safer place in which to live, then does it matter if that moral law is an objective reality unto itself. Of course not. What is empirically true or false about morality is whether or not the conceived of moral law serves its purpose, and if it serves its purpose, then the fact that it serves its purpose is what is mind independent, even though it is not an objective law unto itself. So what is it in society that determines whether or not murder is a good thing or a bad thing? It is the people who subjectively do not wish to be killed.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                OK, 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.
                Sorry, not interested in your goalpost moves. You were given an argument that addressed a claim you made. You've resorted to pretending that argument doesn't exist. So I'm going to repeat the argument until you have the honesty and decency to address it:
                "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 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.

                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.
                "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                  So you are unaware that a creator is what gives an item/thing it's objective existence?
                  No, a creator is not what gives an item/thing it's objective existence. For example, dogs objectively exist, regardless of whether or not God exists. The existence of a dog does not logically entail God's exist, nor does it imply (as a matter of metaphysical necessity) God's existence, since dogs can be ontologically distinct from a deity.

                  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.
                  The argument isn't even formally valid, and makes no sense.

                  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.
                  "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    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:

                    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 Post
                    And the theory of moral realism is subjective, mind dependent, because it expresses an idea that you like.
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    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 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.


                    Please try to answer honestly, instead of just saying whatever you think is useful for your current apologetic goal
                    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      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.
                      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                      “not all there” - you know who you are

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                        You'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 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.


                        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.
                        OK, so you don't know if Moral realism is true or not?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          You 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.
                          What is objectively true, or mind independent, about moral laws, is whether or not they work. 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. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" is not an objective mind independent law unto itself, what is objective and mind independent is the result of the imperitive. So why is it wrong to kill? Because God says so? Or because it is a moral imperitive that works to our collective and individual advantage? The latter suffices as reason, the former acts as an enforcement to reason.



                          OK, so you don't know if Moral realism is true or not?
                          Whats objectively true is the result of moral imperatives, not the moral imperatives themselves.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Whats objectively true is the result of moral imperatives, not the moral imperatives themselves.
                            I'm still not seeing it. Maybe I need some clear examples. Let's look at this:

                            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.
                            So the objective truth is... what? Someone wasn't killed? Is there some reinforcement that shows that this is a good thing?

                            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.
                            Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              You are missing the point.
                              You are dodging the question:
                              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.
                              Because they're features of the world that don't depend on mind-dependent views. You've been told this before.

                              Demonstrate how that is so.
                              It's so by definition, once you know what "objective" means in this context (which I don't think you do).

                              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.
                              Feel free to familiarize yourself with normative ethical positions that are compatible with moral realism. Plenty of accounts of objective moral facts, whether from Kantianism, utilitarianism, or virtue ethics:

                              (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?
                              I never said that. Please don't lie about what I've said or implied. You've done this before, and it's not honest.

                              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.
                              "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                                You are dodging the question:
                                Do you think the OP's definition of moral realism is correct?
                                Yes. I agree that is what you believe.


                                Because they're features of the world that don't depend on mind-dependent views. You've been told this before.
                                OK, let's focus here, so I don't get confused. How is this possible? Moral facts or questions are dependent on interpersonal interaction. They are by nature mind-dependent.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Starlight, 07-24-2021, 09:58 PM
                                26 responses
                                124 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, 07-20-2021, 12:05 PM
                                119 responses
                                544 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-16-2021, 07:39 AM
                                73 responses
                                353 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Mountain Man, 07-05-2021, 04:27 PM
                                74 responses
                                445 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by tabibito, 06-30-2021, 02:53 AM
                                50 responses
                                328 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X