[Serious] An Argument Against Hedonistic Moral Realism

[SenseMaker007]

Here's an argument against Hedonistic Moral Realism:

Premise 1: For hedonistic moral realism to be true moral realism as a whole has to be capable of being true.

Premise 2: Moral realism as a whole is only true if the foundation of moral values is something mind-independent.

Premise 4: According to hedonistic moral realism the foundation of moral values is pain and/or pleasure.

Premise 5: Neither pain nor pleasure is something mind-independent.

Conclusion: Hedonistic Moral Realism is false.

Thoughts on this argument?

[The Grand Nudger]

You might not be talking about mind dependence the same way that ethical theorists are.

Any moral theory can agree that all of this stuff happens in our brains.  That pleasure and pain are mind dependent, in that way.

Mind independence in moral theory concerns itself with the reference of the phenomena rather than it's production or the apparatus used.

From the hedonists pov, because there really are things in the world that really do cause pleasure or pain, those concepts of ours, that our brain produces, are not mind dependent. Their truth relies on the truth of some variable exterior to them, exterior to their minds.

[SenseMaker007]

Mind independence in moral theory concerns itself with the reference of the phenomena rather than it's production or the apparatus used.

Meaning? I can't make sense of this at all. Nothing in this statement means that pain and pleasure are not mind-dependent. What you can't seem to grasp is the fact that pain and pleasure are always mind-dependent. There's no sense in which they're not, philosophical or otherwise.

From the hedonists pov, because there really are things in the world that really do cause pleasure or pain, those concepts of ours, that our brain produces, are not mind dependent.  Their truth relies on the truth of some variable exterior to them, exterior to their minds.

Hedonists think that causing pain is only bad because pain is bad and causing pleasure is only good because pleasure is good. And pain and pleasure is mind-dependent. That's the point. This isn't rocket science.

---

@Gae Bolga Nevermind, I'd rather have the answer from somebody else because you've demonstrated on the other thread that you're incapable of seeing things from a point of view that you disagree with. And if you ever demonstrate anything to the contrary out of bloodymindedness then that just demonstrates that you were able but you refused to for the sake of being contrary or whatever other motives you have that, one thing's for sure, very much aren't] motives to seek out the truth.

So, I'm writing this particular post because I want other posters to be aware that if I don't respond to future posts by Gae it isn't because I don't have an answer to him it's because he will happily tell me that squares have five sides if I tell him that they have four. I'm looking for answers from people who don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing and are looking at philosophical questions honestly and with an open mind.

And I gave Gae farrrrrrr more chances than I should have.

[SenseMaker007]

And, as I said on the other thread, if you're going to have a reasonable disagreement with somebody you have to be able to accurately characterize their viewpoint.

Anyways, back on topic. Hopefully, there will be some other takers because it's only Gae that seems to want to respond to me on philosophical matters today and I use "respond" in the loosest possible way.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Moral realism as a whole is only true if the foundation of moral values is something mind-independent.

It is not immediately obvious that this is the case.

Boru

[SenseMaker007]

Moral realism as a whole is only true if the foundation of moral values is something mind-independent.

It is not immediately obvious that this is the case.

Boru

Correct! The second premise in the argument is unsound. Moral realism is true if the foundation of values is something that is true independent of human opinion ... not independent of human minds altogether. There are truths about our minds that are true independent of our opinion of the matter. I'm sure that it's true that your mind didn't spend the last 15 minutes imagining Adolf Hitler bounce around on a space hopper while eating Marmite on toast. And I'm sure that that truth about your mind doesn't depend on what people's opinions are.

P.S. This a serious thread, but that doesn't mean I can't use an amusing analogy so long as the amusing analogy makes a serious point.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It is not immediately obvious that this is the case.

Boru

Correct! Moral realism is true if the foundation of values is something that is true independent of human opinion ... not independent of human minds altogether.

Then doesn't the rest of your argument suffer as a result? I think you're on to something valid here, but the structure of your argument seems to need a little tweaking.

Boru

[SenseMaker007]

Correct! Moral realism is true if the foundation of values is something that is true independent of human opinion ... not independent of human minds altogether.

Then doesn't the rest of your argument suffer as a result? I think you're on to something valid here, but the structure of your argument seems to need a little tweaking.

Boru

The rest of the argument certainly does suffer as a result.

As for my motives: I was originally going to make a thread explaining why mind-independence should not be a condition for moral realism because I've seen too many moral realists who aren't hedonistic insist that moral realism has to be mind-independent.

But I think that this approach was much more effective.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hedonists think that causing pain is only bad because pain is bad and causing pleasure is only good because pleasure is good. And pain and pleasure is mind-dependent. That's the point. This isn't rocket science.

No, it's not rocket science.  Since things really do cause pleasure and pain, since it's not just our opinion that they do - this notion is mind independent in the sense being discussed by ethical theorists.

If I ask you "does cutting off a persons arm really hurt, or is it just your opinion that it hurts" - what would your response be?

---

Perhaps, btw, you've seen too many moral realists assert that moral realism has to be mind independant because its a defining criteria of what the position refers to?  If moral x's are not mind independent, then they're subjectivist moral x's, not realist moral x's. Food for thought.

[brewer]

And, as I said on the other thread, if you're going to have a reasonable disagreement with somebody you have to be able to accurately characterize their viewpoint.

Anyways, back on topic. Hopefully, there will be some other takers because it's only Gae that seems to want to respond to me on philosophical matters today and I use "respond" in the loosest possible way.

Lawdy, lawdy, youse knose we love bein tawked down to.