RE: Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?
October 12, 2018 at 5:55 am
(This post was last modified: October 12, 2018 at 6:02 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(October 12, 2018 at 5:50 am)robvalue Wrote: I still have no clue what moral realism is supposed to be. I appreciate the efforts to explain it, but I’m no closer I’m afraid.It's real simple. Moral realism contends that at least some moral statements either do or could purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts right, they would be true.
Quote:It seems to either be about some fixed objective morality, or it’s about how any moral system must work internally. The former is garbage as I’ve described. The latter seems pointless. If we're designing a moral system, we can make it work however we want. It can be logical, illogical, consistent or inconsistent. What is "wrong" and "right" is completely up to people / societies / aliens / uber-beings / cosmic consciousness to define for themselves. We can objectively define outcomes of actions, but we can do so without any moral commentary. It’s when we step in and say, "So you should do that" or "So you shouldn’t do that" that a moral judgement has been made.B-mine, is it, though..and can we? You're assuming your conclusion in order to argue for it. Can you change your opinion about some moral thing, say rape? If you did change your opinion, would it change rape? Is it just your opinion, whatever your opinion is - that makes rape right or wrong?
An objective moral statement, for it's part, would have to be logical, consistent, and factually accurate. In this concept, your opinions do not have the ability to change the fact of the matter, even if you do have the ability to change your opinions. Moral facts wouldn't be the only facts about which there were dissenting opinions, but that doesn't actually make them less factual.
Quote:So honestly, I have no clue. It’s such a vague idea in the first place that trying to attach rules to it seems pointless. It would just be a way of evaluating what we see was a "useful" system, merely on its internal consistency. But we may view it as brilliantly good or vile brutality, regardless of its consistency.It's very specific. A moral fact is a statement with a moral component that purports to report a fact and gets those facts right. Further, what is moral may not always be useful or advantageous.
The suicide pact dilemma demonstrates this wonderfully...and we confront it all the time in our personal and collective lives.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
