On Moral Realism

[Stoic]

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

Probably depends on who you ask, and what moral beliefs you are referring to.

[Machinist]

Probably depends on who you ask, and what moral beliefs you are referring to.

What then is the difference between moral relativism and moral realism?




Moral Realism:


Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true. 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).


Moral Relativism:


The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.

Both paragraphs were snipped from the same Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I don't see a difference between the Moral Realism that you are referring to, and Moral Relativism/Ethical Subjectivism. Although realism "purports to report facts", while relativism doesn't even bother. I don't see that that means anything at all. The idea of holding that some moral claims are true seems very vacuous to me. Non-theistic Realism sounds very much like an agnostic position on morality.

[Stoic]

What then is the difference between moral relativism and moral realism?




Moral Realism:


Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true. 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).


Moral Relativism:


The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.

Both paragraphs were snipped from the same Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I don't see a difference between the Moral Realism that you are referring to, and Moral Relativism/Ethical Subjectivism. Although realism "purports to report facts", while relativism doesn't even bother. I don't see that that means anything at all. The idea of holding that some moral claims are true seems very vacuous to me. Non-theistic Realism sounds very much like an agnostic position on morality.

Don't blame me; I don't make up the definitions.

Morality is a complex subject.

[Machinist]

Don't blame me; I don't make up the definitions.

Morality is a complex subject.

It is indeed very complex and the subject has thousands of branches.

However, there is one small nugget at the core of it all that is ridiculously easy to understand. At the core of it all, is the question : are there moral absolutes that are universal?

[shunyadragon]

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

True or false concept of morality is not a good question. The question is which morals and ethics evolve to be beneficial to the survival of the species.

Natural reality in terms of morals and ethics is that the survival of the species is dependent on some basis in morals and ethics that does benefits and does not do harm the family, community and tribe that encourages the cooperative behavior to ensure the survival of the species. ALL cultures of the world throughout the history of humanity evolved a basic morals and ethics with a basis for their survival.

[shunyadragon]

It is indeed very complex and the subject has thousands of branches.

However, there is one small nugget at the core of it all that is ridiculously easy to understand. At the core of it all, is the question : are there moral absolutes that are universal?

Easy answer, no, but all culture going back to the Neolithic human societies have similar evolved morals and ethics that benefit and do not cause harm to the survival of the family, community and tribe.

[Stoic]

It is indeed very complex and the subject has thousands of branches.

However, there is one small nugget at the core of it all that is ridiculously easy to understand. At the core of it all, is the question : are there moral absolutes that are universal?

Even that question requires some unpacking. What exactly do you mean by "absolutes" and "universal"?

[Machinist]

Even that question requires some unpacking. What exactly do you mean by "absolutes" and "universal"?

I don't know how to define those terms except by using a dictionary.

[Machinist]

Easy answer, no, but all culture going back to the Neolithic human societies have similar evolved morals and ethics that benefit and do not cause harm to the survival of the family, community and tribe.

They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

Romans 2:15 NLT

[Machinist]

"Moral realists have here been characterized as those who hold that moral claims purport to report facts, that they are evaluable as true or false in light of whether the facts are as the claims purport, and that at least some such claims are actually true."

Is this not tautological? Im reading this again. It's incredibly boring and I don't know why i'm forcing myself to do this.

"Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right."

Every definition i'm finding looks like a tautology.

Moral claims purport to report facts.
When are the facts true?
When they get the facts right!

[Stoic]

I don't know how to define those terms except by using a dictionary.

I guess I would say that if there are moral absolutes, then they are universal. By definition.

I suppose moral absolutes would be moral principles that are true in all situations, but that could mean that a person or group considers them true in all situations, in which case they definitely exist.

If instead you mean "objective", such that they are true or false in a completely mind-independent way, then I doubt it. This is why I reject "robust moral realism".

[Stoic]

"Moral realists have here been characterized as those who hold that moral claims purport to report facts, that they are evaluable as true or false in light of whether the facts are as the claims purport, and that at least some such claims are actually true."

Is this not tautological? Im reading this again. It's incredibly boring and I don't know why i'm forcing myself to do this.

"Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right."

Every definition i'm finding looks like a tautology.

Moral claims purport to report facts.
When are the facts true?
When they get the facts right!

It's redundant if one holds to the correspondence theory of truth. Redundancy can be useful in getting an idea across.

[seer]

Probably depends on who you ask, and what moral beliefs you are referring to.

I'm asking in theory, in your ethical naturalism, on what basis would one moral ideal be superior to another? If it depends on 'who you ask' we are just back to moral relativism.

[seer]

True or false concept of morality is not a good question. The question is which morals and ethics evolve to be beneficial to the survival of the species.

Shuny, does God, in your opinion, have any moral preferences concerning our behaviors?

[Stoic]

I'm asking in theory, in your ethical naturalism, on what basis would one moral ideal be superior to another? If it depends on 'who you ask' we are just back to moral relativism.

If you asked a utilitarian, for example, the answer would be that one moral ideal would tend to promote more happiness for more people than another moral ideal.