On Moral Realism

[Machinist]

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.

Mr. Shuny,

What you have been describing sounds exactly like moral relativism.

If what you have been describing is not moral relativism, then could you give me your definition and maybe an example of what moral relativism is?

[seer]

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

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.

Good grief, you are just babbling now...

[seer]

Mr. Shuny,

What you have been describing sounds exactly like moral relativism.

If what you have been describing is not moral relativism, then could you give me your definition and maybe an example of what moral relativism is?

Good luck getting a straight answer...

[shunyadragon]

Good grief, you are just babbling now...

Is that all you can do? The lowest possible response with an insult.

[shunyadragon]

Mr. Shuny,

What you have been describing sounds exactly like moral relativism.

No, I reject any relevance of moral relativism

If what you have been describing is not moral relativism, then could you give me your definition and maybe an example of what moral relativism is?

First moral relativism is philosophy based on assumption based on superficial subjective attributes of moral and ethics that are not meaningful in objectively understanding the nature of morals and ethics.

Ridiculous superficial examples like the following:

Source: https://helpfulprofessor.com/moral-relativism-examples/

15 Examples of Moral Relativism

• Eating Pork. In Judaism, there is a rule against eating any animal that does not have split hooves and/or does not chew their cud. ...
• Tardiness. ...
• Veganism. ...
• Repaying Credit Card Bills. ...
• Tax Avoidance. ...
• Conspicuous Consumption. ...
• Tipping the Server. ...
• Believing in the Wrong God.

© Copyright Original Source

You previously made this ridiculous meaningless statement concerning 'moral relativism: "No, differences do not equate to being subjective. What is subjective is anyone's guess as to which one is moral and which is immoral."

Definition: Moral relativism is the idea that there are no absolute rules to determine whether something is right or wrong.

This definition is not meaningful in understanding the nature of morality and ethics. Philosophies that use words such 'absolute' make their extreme meaningless assumptions not based on evidence.

[shunyadragon]

No, I reject any relevance of moral relativism

First moral relativism is philosophy based on assumption based on superficial subjective attributes of moral and ethics that are not meaningful in objectively understanding the nature of morals and ethics.

Ridiculous superficial examples like the following:

Source: https://helpfulprofessor.com/moral-relativism-examples/

15 Examples of Moral Relativism

• Eating Pork. In Judaism, there is a rule against eating any animal that does not have split hooves and/or does not chew their cud. ...
• Tardiness. ...
• Veganism. ...
• Repaying Credit Card Bills. ...
• Tax Avoidance. ...
• Conspicuous Consumption. ...
• Tipping the Server. ...
• Believing in the Wrong God.

© Copyright Original Source

You previously made this ridiculous meaningless statement concerning 'moral relativism: "What is subjective is anyone's guess as to which one is moral and which is immoral."

Definition: Moral relativism is the idea that there are no absolute rules to determine whether something is right or wrong.

Philosophies that use words such 'absolute' make philosophical assumptions is not meaningful in understanding the foundation of morals and ethics.

Edited previous post

[seer]

Definition: Moral relativism is the idea that there are no absolute rules to determine whether something is right or wrong.

This definition is not meaningful in understanding the nature of morality and ethics. Philosophies that use words such 'absolute' make their extreme meaningless assumptions not based on evidence.

Then what is meaningful for understanding morality and ethics? Exactly?

[shunyadragon]

Then what is meaningful for understanding morality and ethics? Exactly?

The natural objective of evolution of morals and ethics, and the rule of law with the purpose of survival of the species to maintain cooperation and stability of human cultures.

[seer]

The natural objective of evolution of morals and ethics, and the rule of law with the purpose of survival of the species to maintain cooperation and stability of human cultures.

What do you mean evolution of moral and ethics? The evolutionary process does not care for or aim for ethics, nor does the evolutionary process care for, or aim for, our survival. Primates like Chimpanzee are stable, even with a high rates of forced sex and rampant theft.

[shunyadragon]

What do you mean evolution of moral and ethics? The evolutionary process does not care for or aim for ethics, nor does the evolutionary process care for, or aim for, our survival. Primates like Chimpanzee are stable, even with a high rates of forced sex and rampant theft.

Typical response from an extreme religious agenda that rejects the science of evolution. Hint, animal behavior, and we are animals, is very important concerning survival of any species.

The question whether evolution 'cares' i ridiculous argument ground in the self imposed ignorance of science.

[shunyadragon]

What do you mean evolution of moral and ethics? The evolutionary process does not care for or aim for ethics, nor does the evolutionary process care for, or aim for, our survival. Primates like Chimpanzee are stable, even with a high rates of forced sex and rampant theft.

pcite=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-20736-000]

Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved.

---

de Waal, Frans Macedo, Stephen (Ed) Ober, Josiah (Ed)Citation

de Waal, F. (2006). Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved. (S. Macedo & J. Ober, Eds.). Princeton University Press.

---

Abstract


"It's the animal in us," we often hear when we've been bad. But why not when we're good? Primates and philosophers tackles this question by exploring the biological foundations of one of humanity's most valued traits: morality. In this provocative book, primatologist Frans de Waal argues that modern-day evolutionary biology takes far too dim a view of the natural world, emphasizing our "selfish" genes. Science has thus exacerbated our reciprocal habits of blaming nature when we act badly and labeling the good things we do as "humane." Seeking the origin of human morality not in evolution but in human culture, science insists that we are moral by choice, not by nature. Citing remarkable evidence based on his extensive research of primate behavior, de Waal attacks "Veneer Theory," which posits morality as a thin overlay on an otherwise nasty nature. He explains how we evolved from a long line of animals that care for the weak and build cooperation with reciprocal transactions. Drawing on both Darwin and recent scientific advances, de Waal demonstrates a strong continuity between human and animal behavior. In the process, he also probes issues such as anthropomorphism and human responsibilities toward animals. Based on the Tanner Lectures that de Waal delivered at Princeton University's Center for Human Values in 2004, Primates and philosophers includes responses by philosophers Peter Singer, Christine M. Korsgaard, and Philip Kitcher and science writer Robert Wright. They press de Waal to clarify the differences between humans and other animals, yielding a lively debate that will fascinate all those who wonder about the origins and reach of human goodness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) [/cite]

More to follow . . .

[shunyadragon]

This is a website with a number of research articles on primate morality and the evolution of morals and ethics.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...=1&oi=scholart

[Diogenes]

pcite=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-20736-000]

Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved.

---

de Waal, Frans Macedo, Stephen (Ed) Ober, Josiah (Ed)Citation

de Waal, F. (2006). Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved. (S. Macedo & J. Ober, Eds.). Princeton University Press.

---

Abstract


"It's the animal in us," we often hear when we've been bad. But why not when we're good? Primates and philosophers tackles this question by exploring the biological foundations of one of humanity's most valued traits: morality. In this provocative book, primatologist Frans de Waal argues that modern-day evolutionary biology takes far too dim a view of the natural world, emphasizing our "selfish" genes. Science has thus exacerbated our reciprocal habits of blaming nature when we act badly and labeling the good things we do as "humane." Seeking the origin of human morality not in evolution but in human culture, science insists that we are moral by choice, not by nature. Citing remarkable evidence based on his extensive research of primate behavior, de Waal attacks "Veneer Theory," which posits morality as a thin overlay on an otherwise nasty nature. He explains how we evolved from a long line of animals that care for the weak and build cooperation with reciprocal transactions. Drawing on both Darwin and recent scientific advances, de Waal demonstrates a strong continuity between human and animal behavior. In the process, he also probes issues such as anthropomorphism and human responsibilities toward animals. Based on the Tanner Lectures that de Waal delivered at Princeton University's Center for Human Values in 2004, Primates and philosophers includes responses by philosophers Peter Singer, Christine M. Korsgaard, and Philip Kitcher and science writer Robert Wright. They press de Waal to clarify the differences between humans and other animals, yielding a lively debate that will fascinate all those who wonder about the origins and reach of human goodness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) [/cite]

More to follow . . .

"Peter Singer"

[shunyadragon]

"Peter Singer"

Huh?!?!?! Reading comprehension a problem here?!?!?! Failure to respond.

There are many more involved here than Peter Singer.

[Diogenes]

Huh?!?!?! Reading comprehension a problem here?!?!?! Failure to respond.

There are many more involved here than Peter Singer.

No reading comprehension issue on my part. More like a flag.