Moral realism

[Nubclear]

It seems silly. Please defend it.

[ZEE]

in what context are you referring to "moral" as...?
and realism is something i see you struggle with sometimes "comrade"
perhaps this is why you think the concept as "silly"...?
this is a good start to the discussion i think...?
interested to hear YOUR views "Comrade"...?
from an "immoral" and "unrealistic" sense of course...
piece

[Nubclear]

Please stop quoting "Comrade". It is strange.

interested to hear YOUR views "Comrade"...?

Gah, I'm too tired. Quick summary of things I would probably say:
Morality doesn't seem to have an objective basis. I'm not even sure what "objective morality" would mean. All the arguments I encounter seem to come down to intuition or appealing to some unstated value ("reason!" "nature!" etc).
Is ought problem. Euthyphro.

[ZEE]

so the very "reason" and "nature" of reality is silly?
i think there are different...and deeper issues at work here...
than the simple thread title would indicate...
and WTF is Euthyphro?!
piece

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by AAHZ
than the simple thread title would indicate...

This is the reaction a lot of people have to moral notrealism.

and WTF is Euthyphro?!
piece

YOUR MOTHER! lol

I'm so glad Apolyton is rising up to discuss teh filosofy. It is really inspiring.

[SlowwHand]

Morality is everything, unless you want chaos.

[Japher]

from my quick skim on Wiki it sounds to me like moral realism is a bunch of BS, or the assigning of words to gibberish. IMO, all morals are subjective, there can be no moral facts only a general moral consensus that can be used to define ethics that can in turn be used as a guideline for laws. I am generally turned off when some tells me that something is a fact.

[DinoDoc]

I denounce you, Tacc. Do your worst! I will fly the Macedonian flag proudly.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Japher
from my quick skim on Wiki it sounds to me like moral realism is a bunch of BS, or the assigning of words to gibberish. IMO, all morals are subjective, there can be no moral facts only a general moral consensus that can be used to define ethics that can in turn be used as a guideline for laws. I am generally turned off when some tells me that something is a fact.

What you just said here substantiates the existence and need of morals.

[BeBMan]

Moral realism is much better than immoral realism.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I denounce you, Tacc. Do your worst! I will fly the Macedonian flag proudly.

Surely we can compromise? Why dont we both change to the flag of, say, Austria?

[Japher]

What you just said here substantiates the existence and need of morals.

well duh. I won't argue that they are needed. But I will argue that they are contrived... but for good reason.

[DaShi]

I wish Comrafe Tassadar was here. He could settle this.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DaShi
I wish Comrafe Tassadar was here. He could settle this.

Agreed

[Berzerker]

Morality doesn't seem to have an objective basis. I'm not even sure what "objective morality" would mean.

Subjective morality changes, objective morality does not. If slavery is immoral it doesn't become moral when I say so.

Who decides what is or is not moral? King, government, the majority? Seems to me the closest we can possibly come to an "objective" definition of morality are the ~universalities we share. If not for cultural brainwashing no one wants to be murdered or enslaved or mistreated, but to be free and respected. The Golden Rule is about a universality we share with the goal of reciprocity.
All other matters of morality in dispute take a back seat to the set of universalities that enjoy ~unanimous support.

slavery wrong, always wrong - not because some people say so, but because nobody wants to be enslaved