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

  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by robertb View Post
    Why which position holds up? Realism or the relativism you keep trying to divert to?
    No Realism. Look at my opening definition:

    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.
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • robertb
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by robertb View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • robertb
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by robertb View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • robertb
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by robertb View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • robertb
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
    Platonism = moral facts are grounded in abstract objects.
    Well then, do abstract objects actually exist? Apart from "minds?"

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by robertb View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • robertb
    replied
    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:



    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.
    Last edited by robertb; 04-29-2015, 04:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
    Theism = moral facts are grounded in God.
    Hardly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rational Gaze
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
39 responses
165 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
80 responses
426 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
303 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
406 responses
2,507 views
2 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X