Correct, x is a series of historical and scientific facts of a matter. To a realist, at least one of those facts is a morally relevant fact. That’s what it means to be a realist.

Your goals, otoh, are historical and scientific facts......about you. Morally relevant in the sense of good or bad making....to a subjectivist. That’s what it means to be a subjectivist.

(August 14, 2019 at 8:53 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Correct, x is a series of historical and scientific facts of a matter. To a realist, at least one of those facts is a morally relevant fact.  That’s what it means to be a realist.

They are only relevant to a moral goal, like enhancing wellbeing. 

Absent of that "morally relevant" when added to the word fact, is just an empty expression, content less. No different than a fact stripped of any moral relevance.

Wrong again, as already explained to you. Historical and scientific facts are morally relevant, to a realist, regardless of whether they are attached to a goal or a goal is attached to them.

Bad doesn’t stop being bad in the event that we don’t care to avoid it. We just don’t care to avoid it.

Is this your problem with realism?

(August 14, 2019 at 9:03 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Wrong again, as already explained to you.  Historical and scientific facts are morally relevant, to a realist, regardless of whether they are attached to s goal.

The realist already subscribe to the goal that they should do things that are conducive to well being, and not do things that are detrimental to it. Many of them just fail to acknowledge the role such a goal has in statements like x is bad, or x is good. These statements only make sense in light of such a goal.  

Quote:Bad doesn’t stop being bad in the event that we don’t care to avoid it.  We just don’t care to avoid it

But you should have cared to avoid it. It's bad that you didn't care to avoid it. 

The expression what you did was wrong, what you did wasn't right, carries with it the implication that you shouldn't have done these things. That you should have done what was good, you should have done what was right. We never have to say it's wrong, and in addition you shouldn't do things that are wrong. Because wrongness already implies this.

If you want to strip that implication out of moral statements. What you're left with is series of amoral historical and scientific facts.

(August 13, 2019 at 9:12 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(August 13, 2019 at 5:17 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, and why shouldn’t we hurt people, Acro? Who or what decides these “oughts” that aren’t, according to you, at all related to physical well-being? Is “The Good” concerned with well-being? Yes, or no?

I wonder if any of us can justify these things. 

Why shouldn't we hurt people? Because it works against the wellbeing of them and our society. 

Why is it bad to work against that wellbeing? Because we want wellbeing.

Why is it good to want wellbeing? Because we just want it.....

If these ethical principles ultimately come down to habit, or preferences, then they may just change.

I dunno, Bel. I don’t think it’s ever going change that most beings want to be. It’s kind of that thing unique to us, lol. As long as that fact remains true, “goods” and “bads” with reference to well-being, can be objective. I mean, what are we even talking about if we aren’t talking about well-being? What does “morally good” or “morally bad” even mean outside of the context of living beings? Acro refuses to consider these facts, and as a result he’s left with the only other explanation available to him regarding ‘what is good’:

“It just is.”

Who decides that it “is”? A god? How can we know what a god thinks is good? Does he have to justify his morality with reference to well-being, or do we just do as told; no questions asked? That’s not a superior alternative to moral realism, lol. Further, if we don’t have to justify our morality using any facts about reality, it’s far more susceptible to whim and preference. “I just know”, and “it just is”, can be used by anyone in defense of literally anything. How reliable is a method that can lead to mutually exclusive conclusions?

No, Acro, they don’t. Realists only subscribe to the notion that facts of a matter x are morally relevant.

Goals are a further commitment. They may not be consequentialist (utilitarian) goals, either. They can be, in fact they can be any of the four main ethical motivations.

Utilitarian, deontological, virtue or rights based.

They can be any combination of the above or some combination of all of the above....but a person needn’t have any goals whatsoever to agree that facts of a matter x are morally relevant.

They could easily say, x is bad because of (insert facts), and it may even be bad that I don’t align my goals to (insert the 4)....

.....,,but I don’t care.

Is this your problem with moral realism? That moral facts neither require nor imply goals or normative conclusions? That they can’t make someone care?

@Acrobat

Is “The Good” in any way related to well-being?

(August 14, 2019 at 9:25 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: No, Acro, they don’t.  Realists only subscribe to the notion that facts of a matter x are morally relevant.

Yes, the moral realist is synonymous to my pizza taste realist. These realists only subscribe to the notion that facts of matter x/the pizza are mortally/taste relevant.

Did that response even make sense in your own head?

You contended that realists already subscribe to some goal. I corrected you and asked if this was your problem with realism, to which you replied “yes”.....

.......and then bitched about some other thing you’re wrong about, that’s already been corrected.

It’s starting to look like your problem with realism is just that you have absolutely no idea what it is, or how to object to it. Those two things are probably™ related, and you could solve the latter by solving the former...at any time you wanted to unclog your ears.

As I keep telling you, you don’t have to agree with realism to accurately describe its content, but you do have to accurately describe its content to disagree with it.

(August 14, 2019 at 9:31 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @Acrobat

Is “The Good” in any way related to well-being?

The Good is "concerned" with being. 

Well-being as its often used seem to revolve primarily around actions and their consequences, where being is more about being a good person, about character and virtues. 

Well-being seems to be focused on political and social concerns, while being is focused on something far deeper than any of these things, about the essence of our life itself. 

Its relationship to well-being, is that of it's fruits. A good person is ultimately a gift to humanity, rather than being detrimental to it, they serve as vessels for it's restoration, to bring into it's proper order. It's what's contained when I tell my daughters, they are not here to curse the world, but to bless it .