[Serious] The Good

[Angrboda]

You're thinking of moral absolutism.

No, I'm not, but your confusion is understandable. Given that this is off-topic and I don't have the time to adequately address this over the next few days, I'll simply defer to a fuller exploration of the question another day and in another thread. We never did finish our prior discussion of it due to similar time pressures that precluded my full participation. I would simply note that if morals are a consequence of empirical facts, then you have managed to square a circle that has eluded greater philosophers. This either points to the fact that you are, in this department, a philosophical genius, or, it points to the fact that you are a confused boob who doesn't know what you're talking about. YMMV.

[Belacqua]

---

Why is that? 


Please give the argument by which you decided this. 

What if we restated it by saying that one way to be evil is to deprive someone (unjustly) of function, would that be OK?

Because the counter of good is not always evil.

Loss of function does not always include intent. It could be thru an unavoidable accident or ones own innocent unknowing action. While this would be bad for the individual it would not be the result of evil.

I think I asked you why you say good may not involve intention, but evil usually does. 

Your answer appears to be:

Because the counter of good is not always evil.

I'm not seeing the relevance of this response yet. What is a "counter" in this case? 

Also I asked why loss of function doesn't always indicate evil. Your answer here was clearer to me:

Loss of function does not always include intent. It could be thru an unavoidable accident or ones own innocent unknowing action. While this would be bad for the individual it would not be the result of evil.

So I think you're going here on the definition of evil as involving intention. I agree that seems like a sensible definition. 

It's interesting to me that the people who disagree with you have a system and definitions that are unlike what most of us use, it seems. If I'm reading them right, good is what leads to flourishing and evil is what blocks flourishing. 

If you put aside our standard definition of evil for a moment, in order to contemplate their system, does it seem at all useful to you? For example I'm thinking that some unintentional act I commit, which nonetheless leads to other people's loss of function, would be evil despite my lack of intent. The extent to which I'm guilty, then, might be a tricky question, but wouldn't claim that the resultant loss of function wasn't evil. 

This is in line with what Yonadev was saying earlier -- that all human acts are a mixture, none is purely good.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're thinking of moral absolutism.

No, I'm not, but your confusion is understandable.  Given that this is off-topic and I don't have the time to adequately address this over the next few days, I'll simply defer to a fuller exploration of the question another day and in another thread.  We never did finish our prior discussion of it due to similar time pressures that precluded my full participation.  I would simply note that if morals are a consequence of empirical facts, then you have managed to square a circle that has eluded greater philosophers.  This either points to the fact that you are, in this department, a philosophical genius, or, it points to the fact that you are a confused boob who doesn't know what you're talking about.  YMMV.

Or, conversely, that it doesn't take a philosophical genius to explain what moral realism is about.  I tend to think that myself. People expect more out of realism than they think (or they're told) it promises.

You were thinking of absolutism, your own comments establish that and there's no room for argument on that count after those comments. Absolutism isn't realism, realism isn't absolutism. IDK, I guess that absolutism may be more satisfying, and maybe that's what people want and they judge things like realism against it.

Oh well, I guess? I can very easily see how realism isn't satisfying. That's hardly limited to moral realism.

[Angrboda]

No, I'm not, but your confusion is understandable.  Given that this is off-topic and I don't have the time to adequately address this over the next few days, I'll simply defer to a fuller exploration of the question another day and in another thread.  We never did finish our prior discussion of it due to similar time pressures that precluded my full participation.  I would simply note that if morals are a consequence of empirical facts, then you have managed to square a circle that has eluded greater philosophers.  This either points to the fact that you are, in this department, a philosophical genius, or, it points to the fact that you are a confused boob who doesn't know what you're talking about.  YMMV.

Or, conversely, that it doesn't take a philosophical genius to explain what moral realism is about.  I tend to think that myself. People expect more out of realism than it promises.

If that were the case, it would be rather improbable that it had eluded philosophers up until now. The far more likely answer is that the reply that philosopher Simon Blackburn gave in reviewing Sam Harris' attempt to square the same circle, to wit, that, "[Harris] joins the prodigious ranks of those whose claim to have transcended philosophy is just an instance of their doing it very badly," applies to you as well. Your cocksure confidence to the contrary, the hypothesis you present is rather improbable.

Oh, and I see that you've now amended your prior post to include a mind reading performance. You might have a great future in entertainment as a mentalist. As a philosopher, I have my doubts.

[The Grand Nudger]

It hasn't eluded philosophers until now.  Moral realism is uncontroversial in the field.

[Angrboda]

It hasn't eluded philosophers until now.  Moral realism is uncontroversial in the field.

Please present a citation of such which acquits your claim. Moral realism is the consensus belief. It's explanation enjoys no such consensus as far as I know. But I'm willing to learn. I rather doubt there would be entire articles devoted to anti-realism if the consensus and clarity was as you suggest. If it was, all a philosopher would have to do to refute anti-realism is point to the relevant facts. That they do not do so suggests that there exists plenty of controversy regarding moral realism. The existence of moral anti-realism alone says that you have exaggerated the claim.

Here. Let me get the ball started.

It is worth noting that, while moral realists are united in their cognitivism and in their rejection of error theories, they disagree among themselves not only about which moral claims are actually true but about what it is about the world that makes those claims true.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy || Moral Realism

[The Grand Nudger]

You can find those citations yourself.

The "consensus of belief" is not moral realism, it's moral relativism. I'm not interested in litigating this with you, I can understand why any nominally rational person would doubt it.

It's not as if I think that you're an idiot for being skeptical....right?

[Angrboda]

You can find those citations yourself.

The "consensus of belief" is not moral realism, it's moral relativism.  I'm not interested in litigating this with you, I can understand why any nominally rational person would doubt it.

It's not as if I think that you're an idiot for being skeptical....right?

Back to the ipse dixit, I see. That seems to be your favorite argument.

"A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other)." ~ Wikipedia

You're simply going from bad to worse here.

Since you're unwilling to support your claim, I see no option but simply to dismiss it as any rational person would. You're behaving a lot more like a religious person who has attached himself to an irrational idea than a person who actually has any answers. Your absurd refusal to support your claim is simply an example of this. As I recall, that was the same behavior you exhibited in our conversation before, preferring to simply dismiss my arguments by telling me that I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about rather than actually answering my arguments. I normally appreciate your opinions on many things, but in this area you display all the signs of being a common nutter. Since you refuse to provide evidence otherwise, I'm left following where the evidence leads. As Hume said, “A wise man apportions his beliefs to the evidence.”

[The Grand Nudger]

My only claim is that moral realism is cogent.  I'm not out pushing pamphlets or anything.  Your comments on possible worlds is an absolutist question.  I don't think that any moral statement could be held to be absolute, I agree with you there.  That doesn't imperil my realism, or any realism. That's all. I'm not saying that you don't know what you're talking about, just that what you're talking about is another thing.

If i tell you "x is bad for y" and you can come up with a scenario in wich x would not be bad for y..I'll just agree with you.

[Acrobat]

Or, conversely, that it doesn't take a philosophical genius to explain what moral realism is about.  I tend to think that myself. People expect more out of realism than it promises.

If that were the case, it would be rather improbable that it had eluded philosophers up until now. The far more likely answer is that the reply that philosopher Simon Blackburn gave in reviewing Sam Harris' attempt to square the same circle, to wit, that, "[Harris] joins the prodigious ranks of those whose claim to have transcended philosophy is just an instance of their doing it very badly," applies to you as well. Your cocksure confidence to the contrary, the hypothesis you present is rather improbable.

Oh, and I see that you've now amended your prior post to include a mind reading performance. You might have a great future in entertainment as a mentalist. As a philosopher, I have my doubts.

It should also be noted that Gae subscribes to pizza taste realism as well, that thin cheesy pizza tastes objectively good, since thin and cheesy can be objectively measured.

He also believes Justin Bieber is a objectively good singer, since he made a ton of money from it.