Non-theistic Moral Realism

[seer]

Good question! Who has the right beliefs?!?!?!?! The concepts of morals and ethics proposing non-theist origins and nature by NMN, Moral Realism, and science do not make the judgement concerning who has the 'right beliefs,' only that morals and ethics are important to the survival of the species.

So you have no idea if Moral Realism is true. And you don't have to be a Moral Realist to believe that ethics are important to the survival of the species, a moral relativist would agree.

This is an attempt at a black and white judgement of which view is correct. Yes, the different views may be partially correct, and one may be better than others in describing the origin and nature of morals and ethics.

No Shuny it is black and white - Moral Realism and Anti-Realism can't both be true, they are in contradiction. So you agree that you have no empirical evidence for Moral Realism?

[shunyadragon]

So you have no idea if Moral Realism is true. And you don't have to be a Moral Realist to believe that ethics are important to the survival of the species, a moral relativist would agree.

Read the reference.

No Shuny it is black and white - Moral Realism and Anti-Realism can't both be true, they are in contradiction. So you agree that you have no empirical evidence for Moral Realism?

I disagree, both views are inconclusive and may describe aspects of the nature of morals and ethics, which is the reason I go with descriptivism it is simpler, more in line with a scientific view, and does need to make the conclusions Moral Realism and Moral Anti-Realism.

[seer]

Read the reference.

That is not the point Shuny, you don't have be a Moral Realist to believe that ethics are important to the survival of the species. That is not necessary.

I disagree, both views are inconclusive and may describe aspects of the nature of morals and ethics, which is the reason I go with descriptivism it is simpler, more in line with a scientific view, and does need to make the conclusions Moral Realism and Moral Anti-Realism.

What - of course they contradict - but you still have not answered the question; do you have empirical evidence for Moral Realism? Or is it just your subjective belief?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/m...intuitive.html

[shunyadragon]

So you have no idea if Moral Realism is true. And you don't have to be a Moral Realist to believe that ethics are important to the survival of the species, a moral relativist would agree.

Actual no, in the absolute sense no, it does not reflect my worldview. The answer is more complicated than your black and white view.

No Shuny it is black and white - Moral Realism and Anti-Realism can't both be true, they are in contradiction. So you agree that you have no empirical evidence for Moral Realism?

The problem with this view is whether the concept of 'Moral Truth' is absolutely true in all cases is or not. In the absolute sense the concept of 'Moral Truth' is idealistic and unrealistic from the human perspective. If it is understood from the belief in God's perspective, than God represents absolute Truth, but it remains not definable from the perspective of the understanding of the fallible human perspective. 'Moral Truth' becomes a relative concept from the human perspective, and somewhere in between Moral Realism and Moral Anti-Realism, which unrealistically rejects the concept of 'Moral Truth' completely.

If Moral Realism is based on the objective verifiable evidence of the science of evolution, than it is objectively verifiable by the physical evidence that supports the evolution of human morality and ethics, but still not objectively absolutely true from the fallible human perspective..

[Tassman]

That is just stupid Tass, you have already admitted in the past that everything we think do or say is determined.

Yes, we make choices but those choices are just as determined as anything else.

We make choices that affect our future whilst simultaneously being subconsciously influenced by present and past events. You've NEVER explained how it could it be otherwise

So if we are moving towards Nationalism (tribalism) that is only happening because were are determined to. Nature at her finest!

NONE!

[seer]

The problem with this view is whether the concept of 'Moral Truth' is absolutely true in all cases is or not. In the absolute sense the concept of 'Moral Truth' is idealistic and unrealistic from the human perspective. If it is understood from the belief in God's perspective, than God represents absolute Truth, but it remains not definable from the perspective of the understanding of the fallible human perspective. 'Moral Truth' becomes a relative concept from the human perspective, and somewhere in between Moral Realism and Moral Anti-Realism, which unrealistically rejects the concept of 'Moral Truth' completely.

If Moral Realism is based on the objective verifiable evidence of the science of evolution, than it is objectively verifiable by the physical evidence that supports the evolution of human morality and ethics, but still not objectively absolutely true from the fallible human perspective..

Shuny, the point is Moral Realism and Anti Realism can not be reconciled. Realism states that morality is mind independent, Anti Realism states that morality is mind dependent. Both can not be true, and there is no middle ground.

Traditionally, to hold a realist position with respect to X is to hold that X exists in a mind-independent mannermind-independenceexist mind-independently.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/m...ism/index.html

On this issue I'm an Anti Realist, morality is mind dependent, whether our minds or God's. We know moral truths and facts come from our minds, we think such thoughts all the time, it is on the Moral Realist to demonstrate how moral truths can exist independently of the mind. That has been my point to Matt and all through this thread.

[seer]

Tass, yes or no, is every thing we think do or say determined? Straight answer please.

We make choices that affect our future whilst simultaneously being subconsciously influenced by present and past events. You've NEVERNONE!

Actually Len made a good argument for free will being coherent, even Thinker agreed that his position was coherent. And since, according to you, our free will is an illusion, then yes we are being determined by the forces of nature towards Nationalism or tribalism. We can not do otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, the point is Moral Realism and Anti Realism can not be reconciled. Realism states that morality is mind independent, Anti Realism states that morality is mind dependent. Both can not be true, and there is no middle ground.



On this issue I'm an Anti Realist, morality is mind dependent, whether our minds or God's. We know moral truths and facts come from our minds, we think such thoughts all the time, it is on the Moral Realist to demonstrate how moral truths can exist independently of the mind. That has been my point to Matt and all through this thread.

Highlighted is false by definition as previously cited. If it is your point throughout the thread your living a delusion of an illusion.

Clarification here on the definition of Moral Realism:

Source: Source: [url

https://www.google.com/search?q=moral+realism+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS 715US715&oq=Moral+Realism&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.8 347j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8][/url]

Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) 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.

© Copyright Original Source

Note - Moral facts and moral values exist independently of our perception, and not independently from of the mind. There are more non-theist arguments for morality that fall under philosophy of Moral Realism, and tend to be too simplistic in your conclusions. There is moral anti-realism. cognitivism, and descriptivism. It is likely that all these are able to describe some aspects the nature of morals and ethics, but none are absolutely correct. I personally go with descriptivism as the best choice, and NMN, Moral Realism, science and Utilitarian Teleology are best considered descriptive non-theist origin and nature of morality.

See: http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

[seer]

Highlighted is false by definition as previously cited. If it is your point throughout the thread your living a delusion of an illusion.

Clarification here on the definition of Moral Realism:

Source: Source: [url

https://www.google.com/search?q=moral+realism+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS 715US715&oq=Moral+Realism&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.8 347j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8][/url]

Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) 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.

© Copyright Original Source

Note - Moral facts and moral values exist independently of our perception, and not independently from of the mind. There are more non-theist arguments for morality that fall under philosophy of Moral Realism, and tend to be too simplistic in your conclusions. There is moral anti-realism. cognitivism, and descriptivism. It is likely that all these are able to describe some aspects the nature of morals and ethics, but none are absolutely correct. I personally go with descriptivism as the best choice, and NMN, Moral Realism, science and Utilitarian Teleology are best considered descriptive non-theist origin and nature of morality.

See: http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/

Shuny, I gave you a definition from one of the best sources of Philosophy on line; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. And that is the whole point of Moral Realism, that moral truths are mind independent. That is why your link states that moral values are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Your link is saying the exact same thing as mine, you simply will not accept it because it doesn't fit your bias...

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I gave you a definition from one of the best sources of Philosophy on line; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. And that is the whole point of Moral Realism, that moral truths are mind independent. That is why your link states that moral values are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Your link is saying the exact same thing as mine, you simply will not accept it because it doesn't fit your bias...

False. your citation was selective and incomplete.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

That much is the common and more or less defining ground of moral realism (although some accounts of moral realism see it as involving additional commitments, say to the independence of the moral facts from human thought and practice, or to those facts being objective in some specified way).

© Copyright Original Source

Please note that this reference agrees with my reference. Moral facts are independent from human thought, practice and perception, and NOT from the mind, and . . . it is NOT true of all accounts of moral realism.

[seer]

False. your citation was selective and incomplete.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

That much is the common and more or less defining ground of moral realism (although some accounts of moral realism see it as involving additional commitments, say to the independence of the moral facts from human thought and practice, or to those facts being objective in some specified way).

© Copyright Original Source

Please note that this reference agrees with my reference. Moral facts are independent from human thought, practice and perception, and NOT from the mind, and . . . it is NOT true of all accounts of moral realism.

Shuny, my quote that you disagree with came from this very site! My quote was accurate, and the fundamental difference between Realism and Anti Realism. You just have a bias. Again, back you your quote: 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.

What does it mean to say that moral values are objective and independent of our perception, beliefs, feelings or attitudes? What exactly does that mean?

[shunyadragon]

What does it mean to say that moral values are objective and independent of our perception, beliefs, feelings or attitudes? What exactly does that mean?

exactly what is says, 'that moral values are objective and independent of our perception, beliefs, feelings or attitudes. . .', and it does not say it is independent of the mind. Perception, feelings and attitudes are attributes of the mind, and do not define the mind, nor represent the totality of the mind.

[seer]

exactly what is says, 'that moral values are objective and independent of our perception, beliefs, feelings or attitudes. . .', and it does not say it is independent of the mind. Perception, feelings and attitudes are attributes of the mind, and do not define the mind, nor represent the totality of the mind.

Really? What else does the mind contain? Be specific. And remember the very site you just used said that moral truths are mind independent.

[shunyadragon]

Really? What else does the mind contain? Be specific. And remember the very site you just used said that moral truths are mind independent.

False, it did not. It said, '. . . that moral values are objective and independent of our perception, beliefs, feelings or attitudes. . .', this is not the totality mind by any stretch of the imagination.

Please note the reference said only 'some accounts' proposed this, and not all.

[seer]

False, it did not. It said, '. . . that moral values are objective and independent of our perception, beliefs, feelings or attitudes. . .', this is not the mind by any stretch of the imagination.

Ok, then what else is in the mind?