The Moral Realism Master Thread.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems like these discussions blossom across a great many threads. I thought it might be useful to have one central place where they could all coalesce.  So, let's let wonder lead us to knowledge.  

What it is.  

---

-The contention that moral claims can be true or false, and that at least some of them are true.

---

What it is not.

---

-The contention that a specific moral claim is true.

-The contention that any given moral claim which is currently true or ever was true will always be true.

-The contention that a determination of truth or falsehood can be made for every moral claim.

-The contention that no moral disagreement exists.

-The contention that people do not have opinions about moral claims or that we are not subjective agents.

-The contention that a single set of axioms or a single moral system accurately describes the totality of the nature of moral claims.

-The contention that any realist claim would apply equally to all disparate moral agents in all disparate situations and circumstances with a relevant moral component. 
 
Now, for the sillier ones:

-The contention that there is a god.

-The contention that there is a list.

-The contention that human beings would be reliably capable of adhering to any realist system

-The contention that there would never be compelling reason to do The Bad Thing™.

-The contention that any realist moral system would be legally binding.

---

Here's a handy page, summarizing the position and some of the objections to the position, with an extensive bibliography and a great many links to related subjects.  
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Here are some introductory quotes from the page above to get the ball rolling.

Taken at face value, the claim that Nigel has a moral obligation to keep his promise, like the claim that Nyx is a black cat, purports to report a fact and is true if things are as the claim purports. 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.

those who reject moral realism are usefully divided into (i) those who think moral claims do not purport to report facts in light of which they are true or false (noncognitivists) and (ii) those who think that moral claims do carry this purport but deny that any moral claims are actually true (error theorists).

Now that we have the necessary foreplay out of the way....who's got jokes?