[Serious] An Argument Against Hedonistic Moral Realism

[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.