(December 20, 2010 at 12:52 am)theVOID Wrote: 1. All values exist as a relationship between desires and states of affairs and/or objects.I don't see how this is an argument for moral realism. If anything, it is an argument that morals are determined by what the majority of people want, which is subjective, and therefore in the realm of moral nihilism. There is absolutely nothing "objective" in this argument, hence it cannot be an argument for moral realism.
2. Desires are the only objects of evaluation that exist regarding value.
3. That which is good for an individual is that which fulfils the most/strongest desires from their competing sets of desires.
4. Morality is a subset of value dealing with shared values (good for us).
5. The values in question when it comes to making moral evaluation are all other desires (competing values)
6. Therefore, that which is morally good (good for us) is a desire that tends to fulfil the most and/or strongest desires from competing sets of desires.
If you spot any flaws feel free to point them out.
Even if this argument were valid, you would first have to prove the usefulness (and existence) of "good" in an objective sense, since you use it in 3, 4, and 5 as a given. In this sense, the argument is neither valid nor sound (especially with regard to the first 2 propositions, which are unfounded).
