On Moral Realism

[shunyadragon]

You are dense, by definition (and I included a few) the objective only exists apart from MINDS. And an 'independent academic source' is also mind dependent and subjective - BY DEFINITION... Existing independent of or external to the mind

I thought I would add that the necessity of the physical survival of the species being objectively necessary is the Objective foundation of the systems of morals, ethics and the 'Tule of Law,' are independent of the Subjectivism and exists independent of the mind.

[seer]

I thought I would add that the necessity of the physical survival of the species being objectively necessary is the Objective foundation of the systems of morals, ethics and the 'Tule of Law,' are independent of the Subjectivism and exists independent of the mind.

That makes no sense. Our survival is not necessary any more than the survival of the dinosaurs was necessary.

[shunyadragon]

That makes no sense. Our survival is not necessary any more than the survival of the dinosaurs was necessary.

This is a common response from the perspective of those with an extreme subjective religious agenda, It is accepted that you reject Natural Evolution and the objective consequences concerning our physical, social, emotional and behavioral evolution dependent on the survival of the human species, as well as all life on earth. The logical conclusion of the above is life itself from the natural perspective is not necessary. Unfortunately it would also conclude that our existence is not theologically necessary. From the greater natural perspective. I, of course, agree from the natural perspective our existence is not necessary, but given the fact that life and humans exist there are reason we physically exist, and survival of the species through evolution is the natural explanation why life and we exist.

I disagree with much of these philosophical arguments arguments by their inherent subjective nature, because of the nature of these arguments they are not based on any sort of consistent objective evidence basis concerning the nature of the human species, and biased agendas abound. Though I have given concise and specific responses based on these philosophies the natural nature of being human trumps all. The conclusion that the extreme black or white conclusions of arguments from philosophies considered 'absolute' by some are not reliable in terms of philosophical perspectives.

. . . but, as a matter of fact our existence as well as life itself exists based on the necessity of survival through change and diversity in evolution, based on the adaption to the changing environment, whether you believe in God or not. If you are a Theistic Evolutionist like me, this constantly changing adaptive evolutionary process is necessary for the existence and survival pf our species and all of life on earth with a Created purpose. In the evolution of life diverse differences are a part of the natural course of life and the nature of humanity. The diverse differences in the morals, ethics and 'Rule of Law' is a part of the natural process of the evolution of human behavior to survive as a species. As with the necessity of physical and behavioral diversity naturally in life this is necessary for natural evolution of life and species to survive The consistency of the basic morals, ethics and 'Rules of Law' reflects the objectively necessity for humanity to survive

[seer]

The diverse differences in the morals, ethics and 'Rule of Law' is a part of the natural process of the evolution of human behavior to survive as a species. As with the necessity of physical and behavioral diversity naturally in life this is necessary for natural evolution of life and species to survive The consistency of the basic morals, ethics and 'Rules of Law' reflects the objectively necessity for humanity to survive

1.Again, if it is necessary for humans to survive, why wasn't it necessary for past extinct species to survive? There is no 'necessary' in any of this.

2. 'Rule of law' can mean anything, from liberal Western states to totalitarian slave states. Like China or North Korea. So you are not saying anything.

[Diogenes]

This is a common response from the perspective of those with an extreme subjective religious agenda

The survival of the species Homo sapiens sapiens is not necessary. Now please show me my "extreme subjective religious agenda".

[shunyadragon]

The survival of the species Homo sapiens sapiens is not necessary. Now please show me my "extreme subjective religious agenda".

Addressed all of the above previously

Sure the survival of the human species is not necessary from the greater natural perspective, but we exist and there are objective natural explanations we exist and physically and behaviorally evolved

First ALL religious argument down to the existence of God are subjective. Second, the issue of philosophical 'beliefs' such as objectivism subjectivism, moral realism definitely have a subjective religious perspective.

Source: https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/103/eoes.html#:~:text=Subjectivism%20says%20that%20the%20moral,a%20form%20of%20ethical%20objectivism.

ETHICAL OBJECTIVISM

In ethical objectivism moral values and virtues are intrinsic, not dependent on anything outside of them. In ethical objectivism moral law is uncreated and eternal and not subject to any will, divine or human. (One form of ethical objectivism is moral absolutism.) No will can lessen the consequence of acts against the law. There is no grace in ethical objectivism. In order to avoid punishment, one must perfect one's life and follow the law perfectly. The law of karma, continuous birth, death and rebirth until such moral perfection is reached, appears to be the ultimate expression of ethical objectivism. In Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, for most people one lifetime is not enough for such moral perfection.
The "Law of Karma" holds that if people act in evil ways, that evil will eventually return to them. Conversely, if people do good deeds, then they will advance in spiritual progress. This is connected to reincarnation, where those with a "negative balance" in good deeds will come back in a lower position in society or the animal world.
Ethical subjectivism, as we have seen above, is the opposite of ethical objectivism. Subjectivism says that the moral values are dependent on a human or divine will, that they can change from one situation to another. Please note that a large majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in moral absolutism, which is a form of ethical objectivism. Also note that Buddhists may have a weaker definition of the law of karma. For some Buddhists it may simply mean that actions have consequences.

When it comes to deciding whether Aristotle, Confucius, and the Buddha are ethical objectivists or subjectivists, you should focus on the following questions: (1) For Aristotle and Confucius who or what tells us the right action? (2) What is the role that God plays for Aristotle and Heaven for Confucius? and (3) Does "relative to" me in each of these thinkers undermine ethical objectivism?

nINTRINSIC VS. EXTRINSIC VALUE.Somethinghas intrinsic value is its value is not dependent on anything outside of it.

nA thing with extrinsic value does depend on something outside of it for its value. nThe former is an “end in itself,” while the latter is a “means to an end.” nIntrinsic value is found in persons, nature, and works of art. nExtrinsic value in money and consummables. Immanuel Kant's second form of the categorical imperative states that we are to treat persons always as ends in themselves never merely as means to ends.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Addressed all of the above previously

Sure the survival of the human species is not necessary from the greater natural perspective, but we exist and there are objective natural explanations we exist and physically and behaviorally evolved.

Good so you agree that human survival is not necessary.


Ethical subjectivism, as we have seen above, is the opposite of ethical objectivism. Subjectivism says that the moral values are dependent on a human or divine will, that they can change from one situation to another. Please note that a large majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in moral absolutism, which is a form of ethical objectivism. Also note that Buddhists may have a weaker definition of the law of karma. For some Buddhists it may simply mean that actions have consequences.


So do you agree that human morals and laws fall in the Ethical subjectivism camp?

[shunyadragon]

Good so you agree that human survival is not necessary.

No reread my post and respond honestly


Ethical subjectivism, as we have seen above, is the opposite of ethical objectivism. Subjectivism says that the moral values are dependent on a human or divine will, that they can change from one situation to another. Please note that a large majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in moral absolutism, which is a form of ethical objectivism. Also note that Buddhists may have a weaker definition of the law of karma. For some Buddhists it may simply mean that actions have consequences.

So do you agree that human morals and laws fall in the Ethical subjectivism camp?

No, again your posts are dishonest, selective and biased based on a subjective religious agenda.

[seer]

No reread my post and respond honestly

Which is it? Is human survival necessary or not?

Ethical subjectivism, as we have seen above, is the opposite of ethical objectivism. Subjectivism says that the moral values are dependent on a human or divine will, that they can change from one situation to another. Please note that a large majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in moral absolutism, which is a form of ethical objectivism. Also note that Buddhists may have a weaker definition of the law of karma. For some Buddhists it may simply mean that actions have consequences.

No, again your posts are dishonest, selective and biased based on a subjective religious agenda.

I just quoted your link! If you don't hold to Ethical subjectivism then you must hold Ethical objectivism...

In ethical objectivism moral values and virtues are intrinsic, not dependent on anything outside of them. In ethical objectivism moral law is uncreated and eternal and not subject to any will, divine or human. (One form of ethical objectivism is moral absolutism.

Which is it?

[shunyadragon]

The survival of the species Homo sapiens sapiens is not necessary. Now please show me my "extreme subjective religious agenda".

Those of an extreme religious agenda do not consider the evolution of the survival of life and any species legitimate science that explains the nature of being human,

Science is not based on either ethical objectivism not subjectivism.

[shunyadragon]

An interesting reference that reflects my view of rejecting the religious objectivism vs, subjectivism is worth a read.

Source: https://theobjectivestandard.com/2009/02/religion-vs-subjectivism/

Religion vs. Subjectivism: Why Neither Will Do

Craig Biddle

“If there is no God, anything goes.” This popular claim is an eloquent distillation of a deep-rooted false alternative wreaking havoc on human life and happiness. The adage compresses into a few words the age-old debate over whether morality is a matter of “divine commandments” or “human sentiments.” Whatever their disagreements, both sides of this argument accept the idea that your basic moral choice is to be guided either by faith or by feelings. In other words, both sides agree that your choice is: religion or subjectivism. But if you want to live and enjoy life, neither of these will do. Neither religion nor subjectivism provides proper guidance for human action; each calls for human sacrifice and leads to human suffering—both physical and spiritual. To see why, we will look first at the theoretical essence of each of these doctrines; then we will turn to the practical consequences—historical and personal—of accepting them.

Let us begin with religion.

Religion holds that there is a God who demands your faith and obedience. He is said to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being who is the creator of the universe, the source of all truth, and the maker of moral law. Religion’s basic moral tenet is: Don’t place your self, your personal values, your own interests, your will, above those of God. Rather, you should live to glorify Him, to obey His commands, to fulfill His higher purpose. To do otherwise—to act on behalf of your own selfish concerns as if your life were an end in itself—is to “sin.” As the religious scholar Reverend John Stott declares: “God’s order is that we put him first, others next, self last. Sin is the reversal of the order.”¹

According to religion, being moral consists not in pursuing your own interests, but in self-sacrificially serving God. Theologian and rabbi Abraham Heschel expresses this tenet as follows: “The essence and greatness of man do not lie in his ability to please his ego, to satisfy his needs, but rather in his ability to stand above his ego, to ignore his own needs; to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of the holy.”²

Now, you might argue that to ignore your own needs and sacrifice your own interests is contrary to the requirements of your life and happiness. But according to religion, that is no ground for complaint, because, as theologian Walter Kaiser puts it: “God has the right to require human sacrifice.”³

Disturbed by such an assertion, you might ask: What about God’s love for man? If God loves us, why would he call for us to sacrifice? To which Dr. Stott answers: “Self-sacrifice is what the Bible means by ‘love.’”⁴

Taking yet another angle, you might argue that self-sacrifice leads to suffering. But this fact is no ground for complaint either, because, according to the Bible, Adam disobeyed God by eating some forbidden fruit; therefore, you and I and all of Adam’s descendants deserve to suffer.⁵ As Saint Augustine put it: “We are suffering the just retribution of the omnipotent God. It is because it was to Him that we [by way of Adam] refused our obedience and our service that our body, which used to be obedient, now troubles us by its insubordination.”⁶

The “insubordination” to which Augustine refers has to do with the aversion many people have to ignoring their own needs and sacrificing their own interests. After all, self-sacrifice can be extremely painful, both physically and spiritually. It can even be fatal. But, according to religion, if God tells a person to do something, the person is morally obligated to do it—regardless of the difficulties or consequences involved.

For a biblical example of what such obedience can mean in practice, consider the case of Abraham and Isaac. According to the story, God told Abraham: “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and sacrifice him there as a burnt offering.”⁷ Needless to say, it would be very painful for a man to kill his son, whom he loves. Nevertheless, because Abraham was faithfully committed to obeying the will of God, he set out to do just that.

Was Abraham’s choice moral? Should he have done it? Would you do it? What do religionists say about this? According to Saint Augustine: “The obedience of Abraham is rightly regarded as magnificent precisely because the killing of his son was a command so difficult to obey. . . .”⁸

© Copyright Original Source

[Diogenes]

Addressed all of the above previously

Sure the survival of the human species is not necessary from the greater natural perspective, but we exist and there are objective natural explanations we exist and physically and behaviorally evolved

Natural explanations of why people behave certain ways does not say why people should behave certain ways. You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". Moral realism includes within it that moral properties have a real ontological existence and such properties are ontologically independent
.

First ALL religious argument down to the existence of God are subjective. Second, the issue of philosophical 'beliefs' such as objectivism subjectivism, moral realism definitely have a subjective religious perspective.

Source: https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/103/eoes.html#:~:text=Subjectivism%20says%20that%20the%20moral,a%20form%20of%20ethical%20objectivism.

ETHICAL OBJECTIVISM

In ethical objectivism moral values and virtues are intrinsic, not dependent on anything outside of them. In ethical objectivism moral law is uncreated and eternal and not subject to any will, divine or human. (One form of ethical objectivism is moral absolutism.) No will can lessen the consequence of acts against the law. There is no grace in ethical objectivism. In order to avoid punishment, one must perfect one's life and follow the law perfectly. The law of karma, continuous birth, death and rebirth until such moral perfection is reached, appears to be the ultimate expression of ethical objectivism. In Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, for most people one lifetime is not enough for such moral perfection.
The "Law of Karma" holds that if people act in evil ways, that evil will eventually return to them. Conversely, if people do good deeds, then they will advance in spiritual progress. This is connected to reincarnation, where those with a "negative balance" in good deeds will come back in a lower position in society or the animal world.
Ethical subjectivism, as we have seen above, is the opposite of ethical objectivism. Subjectivism says that the moral values are dependent on a human or divine will, that they can change from one situation to another. Please note that a large majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in moral absolutism, which is a form of ethical objectivism. Also note that Buddhists may have a weaker definition of the law of karma. For some Buddhists it may simply mean that actions have consequences.

When it comes to deciding whether Aristotle, Confucius, and the Buddha are ethical objectivists or subjectivists, you should focus on the following questions: (1) For Aristotle and Confucius who or what tells us the right action? (2) What is the role that God plays for Aristotle and Heaven for Confucius? and (3) Does "relative to" me in each of these thinkers undermine ethical objectivism?

nINTRINSIC VS. EXTRINSIC VALUE.Somethinghas intrinsic value is its value is not dependent on anything outside of it.

nA thing with extrinsic value does depend on something outside of it for its value. nThe former is an “end in itself,” while the latter is a “means to an end.” nIntrinsic value is found in persons, nature, and works of art. nExtrinsic value in money and consummables. Immanuel Kant's second form of the categorical imperative states that we are to treat persons always as ends in themselves never merely as means to ends.

© Copyright Original Source

"Intrinsic value" contradiction in terms. Valuation is necessarily a function of minds and cannot be mind independent. "Intrinsic value", much like "objective value", is a red flag of ignorance.

Those of an extreme religious agenda do not consider the evolution of the survival of life and any species legitimate science that explains the nature of being human,

Science is not based on either ethical objectivism not subjectivism.

Science cannot derive an "ought" from an "is".

[shunyadragon]

Natural explanations of why people behave certain ways does not say why people should behave certain ways.

True.

[quote[] You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" [/quote]

True.

[quote]. Moral realism includes within it that moral properties have a real ontological existence and such properties are ontologically independent.

"Intrinsic value" contradiction in terms. Valuation is necessarily a function of minds and cannot be mind independent. "Intrinsic value", much like "objective value", is a red flag of ignorance.

This in no way negates morals, ethics and the 'Rule of Law' have an objective foundation with subjective attributes as Kramer basically describes.

Science cannot derive an "ought" from an "is".

Science does not attempt to do this.

[shunyadragon]

Natural explanations of why people behave certain ways does not say why people should behave certain ways.

True.

You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is"

True.

. Moral realism includes within it that moral properties have a real ontological existence and such properties are ontologically independent.
"Intrinsic value" contradiction in terms. Valuation is necessarily a function of minds and cannot be mind independent. "Intrinsic value", much like "objective value", is a red flag of ignorance.

This in no way negates morals, ethics and the 'Rule of Law' have an objective foundation with subjective attributes as Kramer basically describes.

Science cannot derive an "ought" from an "is".

Science does not attempt to do this.

[shunyadragon]

Which is it? Is human survival necessary or not?

Well ah . . . still not reading ALL my posts on the subject in context. Human survival IS NECESSARY for humans to exist as they do, and the will of God is fulfilled as we both believe. God Created base don NAtural Laws and processes and not subjective philosophies. It is only in the grand scale of the universe and Natural Law do humans survival nor existence is necessary. The earth and our solar system have an ideal environment for the evolution of life and humanity, therefore life and humanity exist,

Please note what I said: First ALL religious argument down to the existence of God are subjective. Second, the issue of philosophical 'beliefs' such as objectivism subjectivism, moral realism definitely have a subjective religious perspective.

I just quoted your link! If you don't hold to Ethical subjectivism then you must hold Ethical objectivism...

I cited the reference for information purposes and NOT what I necessarily believe.

Which is it?

Actually neither! these philosophies are far to subjective and without evidence to be taken seriously from an objective perspective. This is the nature of much of philosophy without the support od objective evidence.