It doesn't follow, but the term is misleading enough due to common usage to seem so, I suppose. Mind independence as meta ethics has it is the same sort of thing as a tree or an elephant being there or not being there. Sure, you can have the idea of a tree or an elephant in your mind, and it takes a mind to hold that idea or any idea...but the idea is not the thing. It's not mind-dependent ..and would still be there even if you were not, as an observer. That's the kind of thing that moral realism or objectivity proposes for the source or origin or reference or index for moral utterances. There are a great many things that are "in minds" that we believe also exist outside of them..and so, are "mind independent".

Your question is a good one...the answer you're aiming for is no..but why not? Is there something objectively true about that situation that means it isn't..or is murder or the badness of murder mind dependent? Such that if I thought it was bad or murder..or my society considered it bad or murder..it really would be ? We often refer to subjectivism and relativism as criticism of objectivist claims. Genuine subjectivism and relativism are different and stranger than we intuitively imagine..because...rightly or wrongly, we're intuitive realists - just like you implied with the murder question.

(June 19, 2024 at 12:08 pm)Lucian Wrote: Thanks for the reply. 
I like this topic because it is appears simple and yet is actually quite complex. The question isn’t whether I think you have good standards there, the question is whether those standards are mind independently real. That they exist in some way and are authoritative regardless of what people think. That there is a real standard of good.
Do you think that your moral views there point to such a standard, and can you elaborate on how?

Another way to phrase this. You have given good normative ethics there, I am asking about the metaethics.

        Without God I'm not sure that a "mind independent" set of meta-ethics can be established.

The ethics that let's say wolves would use to govern good or bad behavior is limited to the mind of the wolves. From a secular point of view then there is no way to establish meta-ethics.

Especially if we regard men as animals.

(June 21, 2024 at 6:56 pm)h311inac311 Wrote:

(June 19, 2024 at 12:08 pm)Lucian Wrote: Thanks for the reply. 
I like this topic because it is appears simple and yet is actually quite complex. The question isn’t whether I think you have good standards there, the question is whether those standards are mind independently real. That they exist in some way and are authoritative regardless of what people think. That there is a real standard of good.
Do you think that your moral views there point to such a standard, and can you elaborate on how?

Another way to phrase this. You have given good normative ethics there, I am asking about the metaethics.

        Without God I'm not sure that a "mind independent" set of meta-ethics can be established.

The ethics that let's say wolves would use to govern good or bad behavior is limited to the mind of the wolves. From a secular point of view then there is no way to establish meta-ethics.

Especially if we regard men as animals.

I don’t disagree with you that [realist] metaethics can’t be established, although I think I am now on board with @The Grand Nudger in saying that theistic metaethics essential boil down to subjective morals. However I do think that anti-realist views have a decent shot of being establishable if the reasons for realism are seen as inadequate. It would be more a balance of probability subjective to each person though; given the fairly entrenched disagreement in the field it seems hard to say we can demonstrate anything beyond a reasonable doubt. 
This thread was me saying “hey, you folk who do believe in them, how do you argue for it and justify the belief”. Something to keep me open minded as I explore these things. 

I think that evolutionary reasons give us good grounds to require stronger proof than intuition on these things, just like you seem to. The

(June 21, 2024 at 2:19 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:  
Your question is a good one...the answer you're aiming for is no..but why not?  Is there something objectively true about that situation that means it isn't..or is murder or the badness of murder mind dependent?  Such that if I thought it was bad or murder..or my society considered it bad or murder..it really would be ?  We often refer to subjectivism and relativism as criticism of objectivist claims.  Genuine subjectivism and relativism are different and stranger than we intuitively imagine..because...rightly or wrongly, we're intuitive realists - just like you implied with the murder question.

I still think that the intuitive realism issue is up for grabs based on the research I have heard one person citing (Lance Bush). 
Clearly my use of only one source for that opinion is something I need to remedy at some point though. Not enough time to fit everything in :-(

(June 21, 2024 at 6:56 pm)h311inac311 Wrote: Without God I'm not sure that a "mind independent" set of meta-ethics can be established.

The ethics that let's say wolves would use to govern good or bad behavior is limited to the mind of the wolves. From a secular point of view then there is no way to establish meta-ethics.

Especially if we regard men as animals.

How would adding a god establish a mind-independent ethics?

Personally I'm a moral nihilist. Ethics, at best, are hypothetical, we can discuss how they would operate if real, but there's no real "kick" to make them enforceable.

(July 2, 2024 at 12:03 pm)Elek_the_Chthonaut Wrote: Personally I'm a moral nihilist. Ethics, at best, are hypothetical, we can discuss how they would operate if real, but there's no real "kick" to make them enforceable.

Ditto, depending on how we define ethics. Of defined in expressivist terms they wouldn’t be hypothetical but would still be non-binding etc

If we separate morality and ethics we can say "morality is at best hypothetical" ....in a world where ethics certainly do exist.... we might keep in mind that morality is about what's right and wrong whereas ethics are the rules of a game. We know how we enforce ethics. With literal kicks..if needs be. Rightly or wrongly.

How do you think a real morality would operate?

(July 3, 2024 at 2:51 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: If we separate morality and ethics we can say "morality is at best hypothetical" ....in a world where ethics certainly do exist.... we might keep in mind that morality is about what's right and wrong whereas ethics are the rules of a game.  We know how we enforce ethics.  With literal kicks..if needs be.  Rightly or wrongly.

How do you think a real morality would operate?

Fair comment (I think).
I don’t think a real morality (mind-independent categorical standard) would necessarily function differently from a mere belief in it. What could be different though between anti-realist and realist views is how it plays out in terms of dogmatism. Moral abolitionists argue that a belief in on objective morality can cause harm through dogmatically sticking to views considered right even where harmful to others. I think I have mentioned such things as the place of women in society, racism etc. that isn’t to say that I fully agree with this assessment, nor that a belief in objective morality must necessarily lead to such issues. Nor is it saying that anti-realists couldn’t slip into such positions, but the possibility seems higher to me
On the anti-realist side there are also issues with perhaps people acting on their desires more. However I think that evolutionarily most of us are wired to want to help others, starting with kin, but that spreading more widely as societies grow. We still would want a to do some kicking, and that is hard enough

So… I don’t think they would necessarily work out differently, but I think there are different dangers of excess attached to both

As an anti-realist, one could behave morally, but why would one want to do so?