Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

I think I see where you're going with this, so if I may be so bold as to sketch out where I see your argument leading at the risk of creating a strawman.

Since the original question was about morality and not pencils, I assume your point about realism was drawn in order to support a point about morality.  That point is this, that if there is an objective morality then that morality is fixed and can be known in spite of the varying perceptions of individual subjects.  That enough observations of objective morals can lead in the sum to an accurate picture of what those objective morals are.  However the problem comes in that we are perceiving moral truths and not pencils.  The only access to these moral truths lies in the subjectivity of the individual observer.  As a consequence we have multiple independent attestations to the proper contours of objective morality.  Each religion paints a different picture of those contours.  Islam is distinct in its perceptions from those of Christianity, Vaishnavite Hindu is independent from Taoist, and Buddhist despite being atheistic has its own picture which is distinct from that of the Jains.  As I contend, positing realism simply asserts that there is a fact of the matter concerning the proper contours of objective morality, it does not help us determine what those contours are.  If my sketch is correct, then you would be suggesting that summation of the independent perceptions of objective morals would provide us with a true picture of their underlying substance.

The problem is that each of these views presents irreconcilable witness to what those contours are.  The Hindu vision cannot be 'summed' to the Christian vision to produce a more accurate picture of the contours of objective morality.  At most, one of these views is correct.  But they might all be wrong.  They might all be looking at a bent pencil.  They all have their revelations concerning objective morality, and they all claim to have the correct contours.  What is needed is a way to test the different versions in some way.  This is the perennial question of the physical sciences: how to test whether one's perception of the contours of objective reality are correct.  The procedure of summing up observations is analogous to verificationism, in which a perception of reality was counted as validating the model of reality if it confirmed that view.  The problems of theory dependence and confirmation bias led to reformulating the criteria for testing physical models.  This led to the theory of falsificationism; the theory which most successfully resists falsification is deemed the most accurate.  But how do we apply such lessons to morals?  How do we test moral systems to determine whether they contain accurate perceptions of objective morals?  It would seem the only data we have to test such things are the individual moral judgements of thinking subjects.  Each individual's perception of what is moral counts as evidence as to what objective morality consists of.  But this leads us in a circle to the relativism that we are trying to avoid by postulating realism, by supposing that there is a way to get at the hidden reality which is independent of individual subjectivities.  Our goal to establish the contours of objective morality has led us back to the dependence for the perception of those contours upon individual, independent perceptions.  Thus, 'summing up' the individual perceptions leads right back to the problem of relativism, of morality by the argument of numbers; argumentum ad populum as to what is objective morality.

I hope I haven't gone too far off the track of where you were heading.  This is just my surmising, and I'm not attributing these views to you.  But I hope I have made some relevant observations along the way.

As a realist you are speaking my lingo!! Regarding varying opinions, "A person can be right, everyone can be wrong, but not everyone can be right!" However, I would be remiss to not give credence to the father of realism, "The truth is the simplest and most complicated thing to have ever existed; while no man hits it precisely, no man misses it entirely."

I would content that Aristotle uses this view as the foundation of an argument to determine objective truth (including moral objective truth).

As written by me:

Aristotle attempts to resolve the imperfectus sensus through universalia in rebus; stating there are given universal perfections all particulars must essentially share in order to be part of some particular or universal set. This may be said to be the reasonable deduction of Aristotle regarding the sentiment of imperfection. If every particular is particularly perfect then it stands to reason that universal perfection may simply be the universally present particular perfections of any set of particulars or universals. While Plato induces Forms that exist independently as atemporal and aspatial universals whose universal perfection may be said to be inherited by any particular as only particular perfection; Aristotle deduces essential universal perfection is inherent to the particulars in question and are to be determined by experience as the universal particular perfections for any given set of particulars or universals; hence as the experience of any particular or universal set of universally shared particular perfections approaches infinity the knowledge of universal perfection approaches certainty and the imperfectus sensus approaches zero.

I had actually gone off on a tangent to talk about objective reality overall and not objective morality in particular. However, if I am to take what you have attempted to surmise I would say correction is required here:

That point is this, that if there is an objective morality then that morality is fixed and can be known in spite of the varying perceptions of individual subjects.

Where I would say the objective morality may be determined is not in spite of the varying perceptions of individual subjects, but by combination/relation of the individual subject observations. This logic becomes apparent in an unanticipated observation by an individual. You see an object floating in the air that to your experience should not float, immediate response is to change medium and perspective of the object. You feel around it, walk around it, check if other observers feel and see the same thing. (indeed most magic tricks or slight of hand limit your opportunities to utilized variable means or orientations of observation.) Thereby it is not dependent on argumentum ad populum. Since the observations may be made by a single subject so long as they are of variable means and orientation they will begin to approach objectivity.

Needless to say someone will say that a single observer viewing by variable means or orientation will not overcome observer bias (which is funny since that is considered the primary way to overcome observer bias). While I do not think such is the case I am willing to consider it and make resolution by saying let us vary the observer as well (though it is not necessary so long as we sufficiently vary means and orientation of observation).

In short realism gives credibility to subjective observations by stating those observations are of limited views of an independent object and reflect truth in part though not truth overall. Similarly subjective moral truths are given credibility due to them being limited representations of the objective moral truth, though they do not capture that truth in total. Certainty (or objectivity) of moral truth is then facilitated by the consideration of subjective moral truth under variable means, orientations, and observers.

---

Uh, I have no interest in a group debate, given the requirements of the format.  If Anima wants to choose to debate me alone, I'll oblige, but otherwise count me out.
(Of course, that depends on the format chosen.  I don't imagine a formal debate just being a free-for-all.)

I am good with that as well. Do we want multiple debates of the same subject? Or would you like to propose a different subject for debate?

---

Until there is evidence demonstrating that there is something more than what you are calling physical space, the idea remains wholly unsubstantiated and wildly speculative at best; fiction. Even if there were some undetectable reality as you propose, me, you and everyone else are obligated to navigate existence as if physical reality is the only game in town due to our evolved traits. Musing about some ultimate reality becomes rather pointless; a true what if d-o-g spells cat investigation.

You are asserting and unproven assertion as the default position, but this is wrong.  The default must be that existence is experiential, since it is through experience that all else is. . . well, experienced.  This is true for ALL experiences-- even those of learning and knowing.

So if you want to say all those experiences by which we learn and from which we infer physical reality are of a certain nature, you're going to have to sack up to the BOP.

Benny has got this one covered!!