On Moral Realism

[Machinist]

I hope every one is having a meta ethical day!


I want to continue a conversation we were having up in the civics thread:




There is some debate as to whether moral realism should continue to require the metaphysical thesis, and therefore if ethical subjectivists should be considered moral realists. Geoffrey Sayre-McCord argues that moral realism should not require mind-independence since there are morally relevant psychological facts which are necessarily mind-dependent, which would make ethical subjectivism a version of moral realism. This has led to a distinction being made between robust moral realism (which requires all three of the theses) and minimal moral realism (which requires only the first two, and is therefore compatible with ethical subjectivism).



What are some examples of mind-dependent psychological facts that would make ethical subjectivism a version of moral realism?

[seer]

What are some examples of mind-dependent psychological facts that would make ethical subjectivism a version of moral realism?

I don't think there are any...

[Machinist]

Morally relevant and mind dependent facts.

Or simply put, any moral claim that is necessarily mind dependent. The beginning and the end of the claim is the mind.

One poster in the original thread made the comment " saying someone believes the sky is blue is not the same as saying the sky is blue."

That seemed to be a solid point within the discussion. No one followed up on it, or gave a rebuttal.

I'm still reading this.

We also were discussing MMR (Meta Ethical Moral Realism)...

The point I was trying to make was inspired by the Meta term here. I don't understand why whoever decided to give it that prefix. What exactly is Meta about it?

Metaphor, Metaphysics...I always think of meta being sort of like a perspective from the outside of a whole, looking in.

In Meta Ethical Moral Realism, what function does the meta have? What does it mean for something to be Meta-Real?

Also, how does subjectivism become real? :

since there are morally relevant psychological facts which are necessarily mind-dependent, which would make ethical subjectivism a version of moral realism.

[Machinist]

I don't think there are any...

Just for clarification, when invoking moral realism, God is necessarily invoked. Always and every time. Correct?

[Machinist]

A couple more thoughts this morning:

It looks like this idea of ethical subjectivism being called realism is relatively new in academia. I would bet that you could even trace down the very person that actually coined it.

Historically though, in the teachings of philosophy throughout academia, Realism has always been one in the same with God. If you invoke one, you invoke the other. The only other alternative that I have heard of is the Realm of Forms, which is not really an alternative because that realm of ideas or forms is also a Mind of sorts, ergo God. It may not be the Jewish God, but it still presupposes mind as fundamental.

Real=God. That makes sense. God is the beginning and the end of all that is real. If there is an attempt to call something real that is in fact not real, then you are basically saying that A does not equal A. Even though morality is an intangible subject, A=A still applies.

I never really thought about calling something what it is not went this deep in the institutions of America. We call women men, and men women, but that's very obvious and on the surface of reality. This is a situation where the very idea of mind independent facts about the world are being re-defined as subjective in the realm of higher education. The fundamental laws of logic are the nuts and bolts of reality, and there seems to be an attempt to confuse things even at that level.

[seer]

Just for clarification, when invoking moral realism, God is necessarily invoked. Always and every time. Correct?

No, most moral realists are atheist philosophers...

[Stoic]

Just for clarification, when invoking moral realism, God is necessarily invoked. Always and every time. Correct?

You might want to research ethical naturalism.

Because ethical naturalists believe that moral claims are ultimately about features of the natural world, which are generally amenable to scientific study, they tend to embrace moral realism, the view that moral claims are not merely expressive statements but are literally true or false.

[Machinist]

No, most moral realists are atheist philosophers...

What is it that is real to them, in their realism?

They do not believe that their realism requires mind independence. That whatever moral truths originate in the mind is as real as anything can be, regardless of how relative that truth is across cultures.

"Geoffrey Sayre-McCord argues that moral realism should not require mind-independence since there are morally relevant psychological facts which are necessarily mind-dependent, which would make ethical subjectivism a version of moral realism."

The human mind then, to the atheist is the basis for what is real (hence realism). It's definitely not an illusion, as consciousness cannot be an illusion. So it is very real in a sense. That's what is meant by realism in the atheist worldview.

The relativity of morality is a very real and absolute fact about the world. It would seem that that is about as much realness that can be squeezed from the term: it is an absolute truth that all is relative. It's not neat in any way I can see and hardly parsimonious, but I think that may be how to understand it from an atheist POV. Otherwise, what are they referring to a "real"?

[Machinist]

You might want to research ethical naturalism.

Because ethical naturalists believe that moral claims are ultimately about features of the natural world, which are generally amenable to scientific study, they tend to embrace moral realism, the view that moral claims are not merely expressive statements but are literally true or false.

Yes, literally true or false relative to a particular worldview. It all changes from age to age and from culture to culture. It may be an absolute for that culture and for that time, but it's not a universal absolute. Realism, in it's truest sense, is grounded in the Real.

Where does the real figure into the moral real-ism embraced by ethical naturalists?

[Stoic]

Yes, literally true or false relative to a particular worldview. It all changes from age to age and from culture to culture. It may be an absolute for that culture and for that time, but it's not a universal absolute. Realism, in it's truest sense, is grounded in the Real.

Where does the real figure into the moral real-ism embraced by ethical naturalists?

I'd say it comes from the idea that features of the natural world are real.

[seer]

I'd say it comes from the idea that features of the natural world are real.

How does that translate into ethics?

[Machinist]

How does that translate into ethics?

For clarification here, what you are asking is:

there are features of the natural world we consider real, this includes moral claims (because everything is physical in a physicalist universe) Everything is really physical, and physically real. Thoughts are ultimately physical in the atheist worldview.

So we identify features out there in the natural physical world. Moral claims point to truths about the natural world.

The question you are asking is how does the atheist go about making sense of these many features and then setting them down in a moral code. What rhyme or reason does one go by to select what is moral and what is immoral?


Again, i'm trying to simply all this for personal edification and to stay with the discussion as it happens.

[seer]

For clarification here, what you are asking is:

there are features of the natural world we consider real, this includes moral claims (because everything is physical in a physicalist universe) Everything is really physical, and physically real. Thoughts are ultimately physical in the atheist worldview.

So we identify features out there in the natural physical world. Moral claims point to truths about the natural world.

The question you are asking is how does the atheist go about making sense of these many features and then setting them down in a moral code. What rhyme or reason does one go by to select what is moral and what is immoral?


Again, i'm trying to simply all this for personal edification and to stay with the discussion as it happens.

The question is, in naturalism, how can one moral belief be privileged over another?

[Stoic]

The question is, in naturalism, how can one moral belief be privileged over another?

Well, I guess the Ethical Naturalist would say that some moral beliefs are true and some are false.

[seer]

Well, I guess the Ethical Naturalist would say that some moral beliefs are true and some are false.

But what in nature or reality makes one moral belief true and another false?