Non-theistic Moral Realism

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I have no idea what that means.

It means exactly what I described.

If morality is not subjective to the individual or to the culture then where do these moral truths exist independently of our subjective views?

As before I believe this is a philosophical view, open to interpretation, and one not confirmed by science. Though it is not incompatible with science.

My view remains as it always has that morality and ethics are neither subjective, nor objective, because it has both subjective and objective attributes. I do not believe 'moral truths' exist from the human perspective, and there is no evidence of this. Morality exists fundamentally as a dominant part of the underlying foundation of human nature that evolved to meet the needs of survival of a social intelligent omnivore, and not in the variable subjective views of individuals, nor any one society or culture.

Science does reject philosophies that propose the subjective selfish moral and ethical choices of individuals have a meaningful impact on the nature of the morality of the larger society or culture. Morality and ethics evolve for the survival of the family, community, society, culture and ultimately the species, and NOT the survival of individuals.

And yes, science can tell us that ethics developed thus and so, but it has no opinion as to what is actually right or wrong.

As to what is right and wrong? It remains that the survival of the family, community, society, culture and humanity determines the dominant positive nature of morals and ethics, and not the subjective judgement of right and wrong.

Yes, men can be kind and cooperate, but they can also be cruel and selfish - both are part of our natural make up.

True, but so what?!?!?!? Yes, there are many diverse aspects of human morals and aspects, but it remains by the objective evidence that the survival is dependent on the dominant positive aspects of morals and ethics.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Tass, since on Compatibilism there is no option of contrary choice (could have done otherwise). I'm arguing for contrary choice - does that mean that all our decisions must have the option of contrary choice? Of course not. Just the majority.

I disagree about your generalization of compatibilism. By definition it indeed allows for contrary choices.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

As to what is right and wrong? It remains that the survival of the family, community, society, culture and humanity determines the dominant positive nature of morals and ethics, and not the subjective judgement of right and wrong.

True, but so what?!?!?!? Yes, there are many diverse aspects of human morals and aspects, but it remains by the objective evidence that the survival is dependent on the dominant positive aspects of morals and ethics.

But what is your point? We don't need either science or moral realism to know this. We have known these things for centuries. And survival is not always dependent on "positive" aspects of morals and ethics. Most of humanity has survived and even thrived under often cruel, totalitarian rule, with no thought of human rights.

[seer]

I disagree about your generalization of compatibilism. By definition it indeed allows for contrary choices.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

© Copyright Original Source

Where does your definition speak to contrary choice?

From your link:

Consider the following incompatibilist objection to the classical compatibilist account of free will:

If determinism is true, and if at any given time, an unencumbered agent is completely determined to have the wants that she does have, and if those wants causally determine her actions, then, even though she does do what she wants to do, she cannot ever do otherwise. She satisfies the classical compatibilist conditions for free will. But free will requires the ability to do otherwise, and determinism is incompatible with this. Hence, the classical compatibilist account of free will is inadequate. Determinism is incompatible with free will and moral responsibility because determinism is incompatible with the ability to do otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

But what is your point? We don't need either science or moral realism to know this. We have known these things for centuries. And survival is not always dependent on "positive" aspects of morals and ethics. Most of humanity has survived and even thrived under often cruel, totalitarian rule, with no thought of human rights.

False, survival has been dependent on positive aspects of morals and ethics. Cruel Totalitarian rule has never prevented positive moral and ethic values to dominate on the family, community, and culture level in the history of humanity.

[seer]

False, survival has been dependent on positive aspects of morals and ethics. Cruel Totalitarian rule has never prevented positive moral and ethic values to dominate on the family, community, and culture level in the history of humanity.

And? The point is cruel, totalitarian rule does not prevent survival, lack of human rights don't prevent survival. And again, why do we need science or Moral Realism to tell us these things - we have known these things for centuries.

[The Thinker]

I disagree about your generalization of compatibilism. By definition it indeed allows for contrary choices.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.

© Copyright Original Source

You and seer just aren't compatible.

[seer]

You and seer just aren't compatible.

Ya think?

[shunyadragon]

You and seer just aren't compatible.

True

[shunyadragon]

And? The point is cruel, totalitarian rule does not prevent survival, lack of human rights don't prevent survival.

. . . because they do not dominate the culture of the family and community and the morals and ethics of the society. Of course, they made things difficult but by the evidence did not dominate the morals and ehics of the society and culture.

And again, why do we need science or Moral Realism to tell us these things - we have known these things for centuries.

Moral Realism does not tell anybody anything, based on objective verifiable evidence. It is a philosophy for the non-Theist explanation of morals and ethics. Science indeed tells us more about the explanation of the non-Theist origin of morals and ethics from an objective evidence foundation, which philosophies such as Moral Realism use to justify a non-Theist origin for morals and ethics. Not all what is proposed by Moral Realism is science, and that is why science does not endorse any one of these philosophies as 'true' or the superior philosophy.

[shunyadragon]

Where does your definition speak to contrary choice?

From your link:

Obvious as the Carolina blue sky on the 4th of July, It is the objection and an assertion of an opposing view, the incompatibilist view, and not the belief of Compatibilism. This assertion does not mean it is 'true or false.' because that is the problem with competing philosophies.

I simply cited the belief of Compatibilism, without any judgement whether it is true nor false.

The definition of 'contrary choice' is the ability to choose otherwise, so what?!?!?! Even in determinism there may be more than one possible choice in a given situation with the option to choose otherwise.

[seer]

. . . because they do not dominate the culture of the family and community and the morals and ethics of the society. Of course, they made things difficult but by the evidence did not dominate the morals and ehics of the society and culture.

Shuny if you are under totalitarian rule it effects every aspect of society - just ask the people living in North Korea

Moral Realism does not tell anybody anything, based on objective verifiable evidence. It is a philosophy for the non-Theist explanation of morals and ethics. Science indeed tells us more about the explanation of the non-Theist origin of morals and ethics from an objective evidence foundation, which philosophies such as Moral Realism use to justify a non-Theist origin for morals and ethics. Not all what is proposed by Moral Realism is science, and that is why science does not endorse any one of these philosophies as 'true' or the superior philosophy.

Again, what does science or Moral Realism teach us about organizing a community or family that we did not already know? Or practice? I mean science can tell us that we are genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, but again science does not tell us what is good or moral or how we are to treat our fellow man. Those are the decisions we make, often grounded in ancient religious principles like the Code of Hammurabi or the Torah.

[seer]

Obvious as the Carolina blue sky on the 4th of July, It is the objection and an assertion of an opposing view, the incompatibilist view, and not the belief of Compatibilism. This assertion does not mean it is 'true or false.' because that is the problem with competing philosophies.

I simply cited the belief of Compatibilism, without any judgement whether it is true nor false.

The definition of 'contrary choice' is the ability to choose otherwise, so what?!?!?! Even in determinism there may be more than one possible choice in a given situation with the option to choose otherwise.

Shuny Libertarian free will is grounded in the principle of contrary choice. Compatibilism does not accept that principle, neither does determinism - period. If you think otherwise please link a reference.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny if you are under totalitarian rule it effects every aspect of society - just ask the people living in North Korea

True, but the morals and ethics that maintain the family and community persist.

Again, what does science or Moral Realism teach us about organizing a community or family that we did not already know? Or practice? I mean science can tell us that we are genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, but again science does not tell us what is good or moral or how we are to treat our fellow man. Those are the decisions we make, often grounded in ancient religious principles like the Code of Hammurabi or the Torah.

The Code of Hammurabi nor the Torah tell us slavery is immoral.

[seer]

True, but the morals and ethics that maintain the family and community persist.

OK

The Code of Hammurabi nor the Torah tell us slavery is immoral.

But neither does science, so I'm not sure what your point is. I mean it may be our subjective opinion in this age that it is wrong, but even that is not the case since some cultures still practice it.