What is the basis for ethical realism and why is it important?

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, that is moral nihilism. Moral relativism means that a moral proposition is true within a culture if and only if it is supported by a culture.

Nihilism states that no moral proposition is valid. Moral relativism states that the validity of any moral proposition is based upon a number of subjective elements including, but not limited to, culture. Relativism does not propose the rightousness of any moral proposition except on the basis of subjective opinion. In other words "right" and "wrong" are not objectively real attributes. So any assertion that relativism ascribes the value of "good" "right" "true" to any moral proposition is patently false. Please read some definitions.

Moral nihilists assert that morality does not exist, and subsequently there are no moral values with which to uphold a rule or to logically prefer one action over another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

But that is of course a form of moral realism, not moral relativism.

Again incorrect and you should read some definitions. Moral realism proposes the reality of objective moral truths (or facts) in which case a moral proposition can be falsified. If you believe you cannot falsify (or validate) anothers moral proposition then you are not a moral realist.
Look back to my last post for a quote and link where you can find a definition of moral realism.

Yes there is, since moral relativists has to assert that "you ought to hold moral relativism as valid" when they attempt to enter a rational debate.

As I have already pointed out this is not a moral prescriptive. You have asserted it is but not defended the position, only continually made the assertion and continually said that any prescriptive is moral in nature, again without defense. Please show me a definition of prescriptive that includes terms specific to morality.

2. Making or giving injunctions, directions, laws, or rules.
...
1. laying down rules

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prescriptive

"Law" and "rule" are not automatically moral terms since there are many "laws" and "rules" that are not at all moral in nature. There are rules in art, rules in mathematics, rules in logic, ect. Are these rules all moral in nature? If not then please give your reasoning as to why the intellectual prescriptive in moral relativism is in fact moral in nature instead of just continually making the assertion.


You apparently do not know the standard definitions for the philosophy you argue for, the philosophy you argue against, and the terms you are using in your argument.

L2 definitions, kthxbye

 

[JoeDawg]

Again, no. That is moral nihilism, not moral relativism.

Moral nihilism denies that anything can be said to be moral or immoral. That is NOT what I was saying. Moral relativism defines what is moral based on context without objective or absolute standard. What I have said is well within the bounds of moral relativism.

Is that an objective fact

No.

or simply your opinion?

Within moral relativism, opinions have weight within their context, but not objectively, nor outside their context. The limits of that context can vary, from the individual up to the level of a society. Nihilism means they don't have any weight at all.

such as you ought to prefer consistency over inconsistency

From a relativist point of view, it simply depends on context. I value consistency when it benefits me and not when it doesn't.

If consistency is not objectively preferable over inconsistency, you must consistently apply a procedure called inconsistency

No, that would be objectively valuing inconsistency. You are refuting yourself based on your objectivist prejudices, not relativism.

Are you really claiming that science is an arbitrary social construction?

Well first you would have to tell me what you mean by science, I doubt we agree, and then you would have to define 'arbitrary social construction'. Defining science can be tricky... and I have no idea what you mean by the other.

Oh, and if you insist on continuing with this insulting tone, don't bother.

 

[Moridin]

The two of you are basically just quoting Wikipedia (an invalid source in a rational argument) and stating that according to your relativist position, it is objectively morally true that one ought to hold that moral relativism is true. Utterly self-contradictory and absurd. I've pointed out this again and again, but it seems that your ideological barriers prevent you from seeing this.

Moral relativism means that if something is seen as morally true from within a culture, then that something is morally true with respect to that culture. Moral nihilism means that it is meaningless to speak of moral propositions as valid or invalid.

 

[JoeDawg]

and stating that according to your relativist position, it is objectively morally true that one ought to hold that moral relativism is true.

I have stated no such thing. You're the one who keeps bringing in an objective (or rather your own) standard.

Moral relativism means that if something is seen as morally true from within a culture

No, that's cultural relativism. Context, and it can be defined differently, is the only necessity for relativism. Subjectivism is a form of relativism that deals entirely with the individual.

Moral nihilism means that it is meaningless to speak of moral propositions as valid or invalid.

Yes. But that is not what we are discussing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The two of you are basically just quoting Wikipedia (an invalid source in a rational argument)

We have primarily been arguing over definitions. I believe yours are wrong, I explained why, and I even provided sources of definitions that support my argument.
You, as you have done here, have only made assertions with no explinations for why or sources to support your assertions.
Wiki is better than nothing and nothing is what you have brought to the table.

and stating that according to your relativist position, it is objectively morally true that one ought to hold that moral relativism is true. Utterly self-contradictory and absurd. I've pointed out this again and again, but it seems that your ideological barriers prevent you from seeing this.

We have pointed out to you that you are misrepresenting our argument. We have explained why. You have rejected and deflected any argument by continuely referring back to your own assertions without so much as an explination.

Your whole argument has been "I am right and you are wrong" except with more hot air in it.
I can do the same.

I am right. You are wrong.
/thread

 

[Moridin]

I have stated no such thing. You're the one who keeps bringing in an objective (or rather your own) standard.

No, that's cultural relativism. Context, and it can be defined differently, is the only necessity for relativism. Subjectivism is a form of relativism that deals entirely with the individual.

Yes. But that is not what we are discussing.

Yes you have stated it again and again simply by making an argument. I have, again and again explained the logical underpinnings of rational discourse and how it forces you to presuppose moral realism.

To state that moral relativism is true in a rational debate is equivalent to make the statement "there exists an objectively valid reason as to why moral relativism ought to be considered valid". So to advocate moral relativism is a rational debate is utterly contradictory and self-detonates on deployment, just as claiming that it is true that no truth exist, or trying to verbally communicate an argument that says that all language is meaningless.

Every time you make a prescriptive statement, you are in fact appealing to moral realism.

 

[Moridin]

We have primarily been arguing over definitions.

So you are saying, in fact, that there exists an objectively valid reason why I ought to hold that this is primarily an argument over definitions? Well, that is an admission of moral realism, so you are refuting your own position.

I believe yours are wrong

So you are saying, in fact, that there exists an objectively valid reason why I ought to hold that you believe that my definitions are wrong? Well, that is an admission of moral realism, so you are refuting your own position.

I explained why

So you are saying, in fact, that there exists an objectively valid reason why I ought to hold that you have explained why? Well, that is an admission of moral realism, so you are refuting your own position.

and I even provided sources of definitions that support my argument.

So you are saying, in fact, that there exists an objectively valid reason why I ought to hold that you have provided sources of definitions that support your argument? Well, that is an admission of moral realism, so you are refuting your own position.

You, as you have done here, have only made assertions with no explanations for why or sources to support your assertions.

So you are saying, in fact, that there exists an objectively valid reason why I ought to hold that the above argument is true? Well, that is an admission of moral realism, so you are refuting your own position.

Wiki is better than nothing and nothing is what you have brought to the table.

Argument from (dubious) authority.

Furthermore, So you are saying, in fact, that there exists an objectively valid reason why I ought to hold that the above argument is true? Well, that is an admission of moral realism, so you are refuting your own position.

We have pointed out to you that you are misrepresenting our argument.

So you are saying, in fact, that there exists an objectively valid reason why I ought to hold that the above argument is true? Well, that is an admission of moral realism, so you are refuting your own position.

We have explained why.

So you are saying, in fact, that there exists an objectively valid reason why I ought to hold that the above argument is true? Well, that is an admission of moral realism, so you are refuting your own position.

You have rejected and deflected any argument by continuely referring back to your own assertions without so much as an explination.

So you are saying, in fact, that there exists an objectively valid reason why I ought to hold that the above argument is true? Well, that is an admission of moral realism, so you are refuting your own position.

Your whole argument has been "I am right and you are wrong" except with more hot air in it. I can do the same. I am right. You are wrong. /thread

So you are saying, in fact, that there exists an objectively valid reason why I ought to hold that the above argument is true? Well, that is an admission of moral realism, so you are refuting your own position.

How can you not see the utter contradiction in your belief system? Every time you make a even a single statement in rational discussion, you are making a morally prescriptive statement as clearly demonstrated above. If I claim that the Holocaust is an empirical fact in a rational discussion, I am making the moral prescriptive statement that if you wish to remain rational, you ought to hold the Holocaust as an empirical fact.

This is not that hard to understand, so I suspect that it is your dogmatic ideology that lies in the way. Maybe you don't want to be held accountable for your own actions? Moral relativism is ultimately a form of epistemological relativism.

Since this is a rational discussion, any attempts to argue against this position actually proves my point, since you would have to presuppose moral realism in order to attack it, which is a formal fallacy called the stolen concept fallacy. The difference between your position and mine is that I don't steal concepts, you do.

 

[Moridin]

Maybe we should just start over with the basics and see if there is any disagreement there, because -- believe it or not -- I truly want to understand your position.

When we enter into a rational argument (and this is very important), we have to presuppose certain things, such as

the existence of truth
the meaningfulness of language
the reliability of the senses
truth is better than falsehood
consistency is better than inconsistency

and a long list of other necessary presuppositions we must hold in order to make a rational debate possible. Now, if one, for whatever reason, choose to argue against any of these foundational and necessary presuppositions, one is actually undermining one's own position. If I declare that it is truth that no truth exist, I have undermined my own argument. I have stolen the concept of truth and tried to force it to do my bidding in my attempt to deny the existence of truth. We see that anyone who argues that it is true that no truth exist is merely deluding themselves and is not really worth the time.

Similarly, if I argue that all language is meaningless by using language myself, I am actually stating that my own argument is meaningless. You either understand my argument (in which case all language is not meaningless, or my argument is meaningless and void itself.

If consistency is not better than inconsistency, you have to consistently apply a rule called inconsistency and we again see the contradiction. If falsehood is to be preferred over truth, then I obviously cannot prefer that position since I hold it to be true. If I write a letter to you and them mail it with the postal service, wherein I have written that you are blind and your mail never gets delivered, then the very act of sending that letter refutes the argument inside it.

To sum up: when entering into a rational discussion, we have some necessary presuppositions that we must hold as valid and any attempts to argue against them implicitly accepts them, thereby undermining itself.

Do we have any specific disagreement about this idea?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Every time you make a even a single statement in rational discussion, you are making a morally prescriptive statement as clearly demonstrated above.

As asserted above. I have treated this position and you have only continued the assertion with no explinations or aguments.

Again

I am right. You are wrong.
/thread

We can do this until the thread gets locked if you'd like. Or you can actually pay attention to my arguments and respond to them with something other than the mere assertion that they are wrong. I do not feel like rewriting them all over again so you can read back if you feel like it.

 

[JoeDawg]

To state that moral relativism is true

I'm not stating that as an objective fact.
And I see no valid yardstick for objective morals.

Its my opinion. And you have yet to show how any opinion becomes objective. One can certainly strive for objectivity using a variety of methods. But you haven't shown any way one could be certain what is morally true in an objective sense. Given the fact I am limited by my context, others appear to have very different points of view, and appear just as limited; moral relativism is simply a rational position to take, not true in any absolute or objective sense, just a reasonable position to hold, given a complete lack of access to objective/absolute truth.

Again you don't seem to understand the difference between epistemology and ontology. Whether objective or absolute morals ACTUALLY EXIST, somewhere out there, is beside the point.

Day to day reality is much easier to view with some 'reasonable sense' of objectivity, but even that is contextual. Morality is even thinner, and really, hardly seems more than just emotions.

Oh, and repeating yourself is not a valid way to support an argument.

 

[JoeDawg]

the existence of truth

We disagree on what truth is, not whether it exists.

the meaningfulness of language

Langauge is only meaningful to a person who understands the words, and the context of what was said. Outside that context, its just scribbles and noise.

the reliability of the senses

Which may or may not equate to the value we put on sense data.

truth is better than falsehood

Assuming one can tell the difference, we still disagree on what truth is.

consistency is better than inconsistency

The value we put on something, the better/worse, has no direct equivalence here to consistency. Human's consistently die within a certain span of years, most people put value on the living part and would be quite happy to accept an inconsistently long life. Consistency is often valued more, but it has no implicit 'better' value.

Its been consistently observed, that one can't derive an ought from an is. Which is much worse apparently for you, than it is for me.

 

[Moridin]

As asserted above. I have treated this position and you have only continued the assertion with no explinations or aguments.

Again

I am right. You are wrong.
/thread

We can do this until the thread gets locked if you'd like. Or you can actually pay attention to my arguments and respond to them with something other than the mere assertion that they are wrong. I do not feel like rewriting them all over again so you can read back if you feel like it.

So you mean there exists an objectively valid reason as to why the above ought to be considered valid? If then, you are contradicting your own position. Every time to make a statement, you are asserting that moral realism is true.

I have restated my explanation over and over again, but your cognitive dissonance gets in the way of seeing it, apparently. So I will restated it (again) for clarification: advancing any argument in a rational discussion presupposes moral realism, since you are implicitly making the morally prescriptive statement that you ought to hold whatever argument you present as valid.

This is basic stuff.

 

[Moridin]

I'm not stating that as an objective fact. And I see no valid yardstick for objective morals. Its my opinion.

Well, if it is just your opinion (rather than a truth claim) that moral realism is false, then it holds no more relevance in a rational debate than screaming that blue is the most beautiful color over the table.

If you cannot provide any objective support for your argument, you have given up a rational debate and I win. Thanks.

 

[Moridin]

We disagree on what truth is, not whether it exists.

Langauge is only meaningful to a person who understands the words, and the context of what was said. Outside that context, its just scribbles and noise.

Which may or may not equate to the value we put on sense data.

Assuming one can tell the difference, we still disagree on what truth is.

The value we put on something, the better/worse, has no direct equivalence here to consistency. Human's consistently die within a certain span of years, most people put value on the living part and would be quite happy to accept an inconsistently long life. Consistency is often valued more, but it has no implicit 'better' value.

Its been consistently observed, that one can't derive an ought from an is. Which is much worse apparently for you, than it is for me.

So you hold that it is true that no truth exists, that all language is meaningless, that the senses are not capable of accuracy, that falsehood is better than truth and that inconsistency is better than consistency? Didn't you read my justification of these? All of those positions listed are utterly contradictory.

If you think it is true that no truth exists, you are asserting a truth, ergo truth exists.
If you think that all language is meaningless, then the sentence you used to argue it is also meaningless. Alternatively, your statement is meaningful, but then naturally incorrect since it was deemed as meaningful. Ergo, language is meaningful.
If you think that the sense are not capable for accuracy, then you are unable to accurately read the text I write. But since you continue to respond to my arguments you have to presuppose the validity of the senses.
If you think falsehood is better than truth, you cannot prefer the statement "falsehood is better than truth", since that statement is true. You would have to prefer "truth is better than falsehood" in order to remain consistent, but that very move makes your position inconsistent.
If you think inconsistency is preferable than consistency, you have to consistently apply the rule called inconsistency, which is utterly contradictory.

Do you agree that a rational debate forces you to presuppose certain things as true? Do you understand why a contradiction means the downfall of a position in a rational debate?

 

[sylas]

I'm quite sure this won't help; but still...

So you hold that it is true that no truth exists, ...

Since he denied this right at the start of what you are quoting, that's a swing and miss.

Moridin, you have been taking all truth statements as moral statements, which is invalid. Everytime someone makes any claim, you are taking that as an implicit claim that you "ought" to accept that claim, and then you take that as an objective "ethical" or "moral" claim. That's invalid. It is possible for someone to make claims that they feel "ought" to be accepted by a rational personal, without insisting that it is a moral imperative.

You are continually using this invalid confusion to avoid engaging the actual argument. It is a logically consistent position to hold that there is no objective ethical standard for moral behaviour, and that there IS an objective rational standard for concluding this.

You have not shown any inconsistency, so far. You have merely mixed up rationality with ethics.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[JoeDawg]

I win. Thanks.

This more than anything seems to be your problem. You don't have any interest in understanding what I or anyone else has said. Your entire effort seems, almost pathologically, focused on telling others what they 'really' think, while ignoring what they have actually said, in an effort to make yourself feel superior. There is nothing rational about that, that's pure ego.

A rational exchange of ideas is not about 'winning'.
Its about learning, and maybe on a good day, expanding your own worldview.

You have not understood what I have said, you have not represented my point of view in any fair or serious way, and you haven't offered anything more than a dogmatic repetition of your own ethical preferences.

You're welcome.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Moridin: please note this post...

Moridin, you have been taking all truth statements as moral statements, which is invalid. Everytime someone makes any claim, you are taking that as an implicit claim that you "ought" to accept that claim, and then you take that as an objective "ethical" or "moral" claim. That's invalid. It is possible for someone to make claims that they feel "ought" to be accepted by a rational personal, without insisting that it is a moral imperative.

I have already asked you to explain and defend your position on this multiple times. You've ignored my requests and continued asserting it as fact.