(March 23, 2026 at 8:17 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(March 23, 2026 at 8:02 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Then what you're talking about isn't a 'moral fact', it's an objective one. Does playing with your pecker cause harm? Not really. Here is a long list of scientific studies. Does beating your spouse? Yes. Here's another long list of scientific studies. What you're talking about isn't moral fact, it's just fact.

...hence objective morality...?  Moral fact, cat fact, just a fact.  It's just a fact that keeping animals in the most cramped possible conditions feeding them literal garbage and then slaughtering them in the least humane way imaginable is harmful to them (and us, fwiw).  Here's a long list of scientific studies..right?

Sounds like what you've created is just facts. I have no problem with that, fact-based morality suits me just fine, but I don't think that's 'what moral fact' is about.

(March 23, 2026 at 8:16 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: There's a system that has moral facts but doesn't tell you what is moral? Sounds screwy to me.

That might be an effect of subjectivist deontological contamination.  Gods hand down lists and people call it "moral", so when you go looking for "morals" in the world you're looking for that subjectivist list.  What if I told you those people were very motivated to get it wrong? 

Lets talk about one.  Jainism.  There are good reasons to think about what we eat and how it's produced.  Unfortunately, jainism says that good reason is souls.  So, no animals, sure..but also no mushrooms or garlic or potatoes.  Bad luck to some poor sap who lives in a place where you have to depend on root vegetables to survive.  Guess god fucked that one up.

(March 23, 2026 at 7:54 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That's a good objectivist criticism...but ofc, it's not a good criticism if objectivism is false.

That precipice exists. That ground below it exists. If you wish to argue that objectivism is false, go on with your bad self.

(March 23, 2026 at 7:54 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Similarly, when it comes to eating animals....that you have to eat, that you are a particular kind of creature on a particular kind of world, that you only have x y or z options available, that all of them are suboptimal....none of this matters outside of an objective understanding.  The preists of the almighty chicken do not care about the details of your chicken eating offense.  It's death no matter the facts of the matter.  You should have committed self righteous suicide rather than eat the chicken, and since you didn't, they're going to correct that mistake.

Right, so the judgement that eating chickens is right or wrong depends on where you stand in the hierarchy of chicken priesthood, which is a very long-winded and suboptimally entertaining way of admitting that morality is not objective.

"Should" is you sneaking in moral imperatives into this discussion when you know that you cannot defend morality objectively. It doesn't mean the imperative is right or wrong. It means that you hope it is not noticed.

Remove any human experience or judgement, and then -- only then -- point to anything in the universe that makes a moral statement about eating other life-forms. Oh, that's right, you can't. That's because morality is not objective. It is a human construct and perforce varies with the individual in question.

When I was in college, I had a history professor whose favorite quote was "History is a fable, agreed-upon". When it comes to objective morality, that truism is equally valid. That is because both history and morality are human pursuits colored by human understandings that are subject to human biases and perspectives.

Or, you could point to where in the universe moral precepts are scientifically demonstrated. Protip: you can't.

The Grand Nudger Wrote:First, universalism and realism are wildly distinct ideas about morality. Second, no, lol. Moral realism doesn't tell you "what is moral". There is no list.

Well, if you can compare moral realism to targets that an individual needs to hit with an arrow (or he is a "bad shooter"), then they do say that there are objective morals out there that are true independently of individual or cultural opinions. It also implies that the societies that do not hit that mark are primitive and immoral.

The Grand Nudger Wrote:Moral realism is a way to think about a morality that leans on what is or is not factually true as a guide for ones own behavior. Thus, here I am agreeing that the underlying point that ethical veganism and vegetarianism begin with is a valid one, and is true - but I don't think this puts every meat eater on some bad list - and I continue to eat meat myself.

It seems that you think that moral realism is about personal morality, but that is not what the OP is saying, especially since he also went on talking about other subjects. So if he is not claiming this, then he probably doesn't know what he's talking about and that there is no clear subject of this thread.

Besides, it seems that you told me earlier that moral realism is objective: In moral realism, so do the objects of moral truth. This is exactly what it means to say that a thing or statement or proposition or claim is metaethically objective.

Nevertheless, what ever it is or isn't, it seems that this is all just a lot of nuanced talk where the OP is not saying anything concrete but is nevertheless trying to shoehorn some questionable ideologies.

(March 23, 2026 at 11:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: That precipice exists. That ground below it exists. If you wish to argue that objectivism is false, go on with your bad self.

I was highlighting how the criticism you offered about a moral proposition - that killing is immoral- implicitly assumed moral realism was true, not that I had any interest in proving moral realism false.  The facts of a killing, say it being in self defense, do not matter in subjectivist or relativist metaethics, because morality isn't about the facts of a killing in either of those understandings.  It's about the facts of a killer or their society.  

Quote:Right, so the judgement that eating chickens is right or wrong depends on where you stand in the hierarchy of chicken priesthood, which is a very long-winded and suboptimally entertaining way of admitting that morality is not objective.

OFC it's not objective in an explicitly subjectivist or relativist formulation?  The point of me going on semi-tangents about this stuff is to try and reduce the sorts of confusion about metaethical terminology that lead to some genuinely and profoundly misunderstood back and forths on the subject.  In a subjectivist or relativist understanding, that fact that killing is immoral is and need only be certified by the fact that you or your society believe it to be so.  There doesn't need to be anything about killing..specifically, and certainly not any individual example of killing with other also non-operative facts.  Likewise, when no fact of killing a chicken matters to the moral conclusion, only the fact that you did kill a chicken matters, that's a strong indication that you're not dealing with anything objective.  There's a phenomenon where all types of moral statements or understandings employ realist or pseudo-realist language to explain themselves - so it helps to be able to tell the difference in principle even if, ultimately, we do not believe there to be a difference in fact.  

Quote:"Should" is you sneaking in moral imperatives into this discussion when you know that you cannot defend morality objectively. It doesn't mean the imperative is right or wrong. It means that you hope it is not noticed.

Moral realism is incredibly easy to defend and the majority position of academia.  It may be false, still, ofc.

Quote:Remove any human experience or judgement, and then -- only then -- point to anything in the universe that makes a moral statement about eating other life-forms. Oh, that's right, you can't. That's because morality is not objective. It is a human construct and perforce varies with the individual in question.

Math, science, and logic in general also fail this test, which doesn't sound like a test of anything that moral realism claims in the first place.  

Quote:When I was in college, I had a history professor whose favorite quote was "History is a fable, agreed-upon". When it comes to objective morality, that truism is equally valid. That is because both history and morality are human pursuits colored by human understandings that are subject to human biases and perspectives.

Or, you could point to where in the universe moral precepts are scientifically demonstrated. Protip: you can't.

I can, but I suspect that if I did you'd tell me that's not what you were looking for - and I'm certain it isn't.  This is the domain of behavioral psychology and anthropology, at the very least - that's assuming there's nothing to them beyond our thoughts about them.   We'd have to rope in evolutionary biology there as an underlying explanation, and not just in us, but in other animals who also behave as though they have a moral sense, and ultimately why those behaviors persist in breeding populations, and what laws of the universe underpin both the existence of systems that can apprehend these relationships and whatever relationship those apprehensions have to objective facts.  

Ultimately, though, I agree with you.  Even if moral statements do purport to report facts, and even if it were possible to accurately report those facts - moral realisms claim, we're still people.  We make mistakes.  You asked me earlier how I could say that the argument from harm and ecological damage was unconvincing.  That's how.  I think that it is very often the case that a person concerned about those things has done (or had done for them) an inaccurate accouting of precisely those things.  Both in and of themselves, but also in comparison to ethical omnivory, for example.  

I do think that if our only choices were between veganism and the absolute worst management practices possible ethical veganism would be normatively compelling.  I think that's what alot of people compelled by those arguments have in mind, too.  If we add ethical omnivory as a third choice I believe that to be superior - in the animal and ecological harm metrics, to veganism.  If there is no such thing as ethical omnivory, even if the practices described did lead to a reduction in animal harm and a reduction in ecological harm....then it's clear that we aren't talking about either thing and the argument is entirely disingenuous. An example, as above, of an argument employing realist language to emotivist or subjectivist or relativist ends.

(March 24, 2026 at 5:51 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Well, if you can compare moral realism to targets that an individual needs to hit with an arrow (or he is a "bad shooter"), then they do say that there are objective morals out there that are true independently of individual or cultural opinions. It also implies that the societies that do not hit that mark are primitive and immoral.

What's wrong with mistaken?  Moral condemnation ala "primitive" has it's own set of isms.  As in many producers and consumers are mistaken about the effect and consequence of their chosen methods and products.  

Quote:Nevertheless, what ever it is or isn't, it seems that this is all just a lot of nuanced talk where the OP is not saying anything concrete but is nevertheless trying to shoehorn some questionable ideologies.

I think there are often a whole hell of alot of unspoken premises and assumptions and ideologies in ethical arguments for veganism.

Science can provide support for actions we humans may consider moral, but it can also provide support for positions we regard as amoral or immoral.

Try it. What scientific support is there for the position that you should break your so's face open?

(March 24, 2026 at 9:25 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Try it.  What scientific support is there for the position that you should break your so's face open?

"I wouldn't want that done to myself" is not scientific, but that's where I stand.

Now, if she's planning a mass attack that might kill hundreds, I could justify it to myself. That too is not scientific, even if it's defensible in a court of law.

"She made me angry" doesn't fly in my world, for the first reason given. It's also not scientific.

If I would like to examine the structure of her sinuses to determine why she breathes so loudly, that's scientific, but I could just as easily wait until she dies of natural causes rather than kill her.

I'd like to stay out of prison. Not scientific.

My point is that none of these reasons are objective.

Now let's see you provide an objective reason why I should or shouldn't. Something that exists outside my head or yours.

-and, like before, I'd just give you a picture of a broken face.

Pyschological and physical damage are real, and scientific. We could expand our inquiry by looking at the consequences of an so's face splitting permissive societal structure, historically. We've been there and done it, after all. Also real and scientific.