What would be the harm?

[The Grand Nudger]

I have one question for you:  How do you distinguish between the following cases:
1)  There's an objective moral truth, and not more than one person in an argument is getting it right.
2)  There's no objective moral truth, and two or more people have different ideas about how to think, act or feel about something.

In the case of 2, where two people are not referring to any fact, that get's discarded as opinion until such a time as it meets the bar.  Moral objectivity proceeds exactly as any assessment you've ever made between fact and opinion does.  It's a non novel system.  

There's also the case of 3 - there are moral facts but neither person is referring to one.  A difference of opinion.

You are probably familiar with my approach to truth: Truth-in-context™.  Take, for example, abortion.  GIVEN the sanctity of all human life, then abortion is wrong-- a human zygote is still human, and killing it represents harm to it.  GIVEN that the sanctity of life depends on experience, and that a zygote cannot experience, and GIVEN the sanctity of a woman's right to self-determination, then abortion is pretty much fine.

You're calculating relevant facts in order to reach a well informed conclusion - that's moral realism.  

My view of morality is that people will feel about things, will decide how they want things to be, and will go through a process of social negotiation, i.e. they'll cast their moral vote-- no objective truth required.  But how would you establish one or the other to be correct?  I don't think there IS a right answer to be found, even hypothetically, to questions like this.

There's certainly no requirement that any fact be referred to in any evaluation.  We make fact free and fact impoverished judgements all the time.  Those sorts of judgments simply aren't the sorts of judgements moral realists are going to sign off on.  The world is full of moral judgements...the vast majority of which do not qualify as realist judgements. Moral realism is a smaller set than moral subjectivity, because there can never be as many facts of a matter x as there are opinions on matter x.

The way to establish "which one is correct", in moral realism..is the same way that you establish "which one is correct" in any other factual assessment.  Which of the two has a greater command of the fullest set of relevant facts and can string that set in a valid inference to reach a sound conclusion. The right moral answer is no different from any other right answer in that regard.

[bennyboy]

I have one question for you:  How do you distinguish between the following cases:
1)  There's an objective moral truth, and not more than one person in an argument is getting it right.
2)  There's no objective moral truth, and two or more people have different ideas about how to think, act or feel about something.

In the case of 2, where two people are not referring to any fact, that get's discarded as opinion until such a time as it meets the bar.  Moral objectivity proceeds exactly as any assessment you've ever made between fact and opinion does.  It's a non novel system.  

There's also the case of 3 - there are moral facts but neither person is referring to one.  A difference of opinion.

You can refer to objective facts, like "Human zygotes are human" or "Zygotes do not have a nervous system capable of experiential suffering." You can then make an assertion about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Do you consider these moral facts, or do you not?

Do you believe (without stating WHICH you believe) that only one of "abortion is okay" or "abortion is wrong" can be correct?

---

The way to establish "which one is correct", in moral realism..is the same way that you establish "which one is correct" in any other factual assessment.  Which of the two has a greater command of the fullest set of relevant facts and can string that set in a valid inference to reach a sound conclusion.  The right moral answer is no different from any other right answer in that regard.

First, you have to establish that there IS a right answer, or even that there can be one.

I've given the example of abortion, and two positions: it's morally okay, or it's morally wrong. Please tell me which of these has "a greater command of the fullest set of relevant facts and can string that set in a valid inference to reach a sound conclusion."

[The Grand Nudger]

You can refer to objective facts, like "Human zygotes are human" or "Zygotes do not have a nervous system capable of experiential suffering."  You can then make an assertion about the rightness or wrongness of abortion.  Do you consider these moral facts, or do you not?

Both can be, certainly, yes.  

Do you believe (without stating WHICH you believe) that only one of "abortion is okay" or "abortion is wrong" can be correct?

No, both statements are deplorably simple.  I believe that abortion is wrong because and if (fill in the blanks) - and if not, or because not,...than not. -That's- moral realism.

First, you have to establish that there IS a right answer, or even that there can be one.

No.....I don't .....actually...just like I don't have to establish that there is a correct answer to the question of what one plus one is.  That's assumed in theories wholly unrelated to moral theory and either stands or falls with them. If there is any true thing, there could be a morally true thing. End of. Either you think there are true things or you don't.

(you obviously think there are true things, or you wouldn't be arguing with me)

I've given the example of abortion, and two positions: it's morally okay, or it's morally wrong.  Please tell me which of these has "a greater command of the fullest set of relevant facts and can string that set in a valid inference to reach a sound conclusion."

It would be impossible to say without explicit demonstration of those specific facts in some hypothetical case. The trouble, here..is that you simply didn't include enough information to decide one way or the other.

AKA, an information problem, not a value problem.

(i can save you a whole lot of time....btw, looking for things like veganism and abortion..none of this searching will yield what you intend for it.)


I hate to say it this way...but since I (presumably) add too much to my comments.... You are as wrong as you could possibly be, while simultaneously incapable of being right....in addition to not earnestly relaying even your own moral schema.

In short...you're an asshole arguing like an asshole, to no effect. Is confusion in that case really any wonder?

[bennyboy]

No, both statements are deplorably simple.  I believe that abortion is wrong because and if (fill in the blanks) - and if not, or because not,...than not.  -That's- moral realism.

Okay, fill in the blanks however you want. I'm eager to see what an objective moral truth looks like!

First, you have to establish that there IS a right answer, or even that there can be one.

No.....I don't .....actually...just like I don't have to establish that there is a correct answer to the question of what one plus one is.  That's assumed in theories wholly unrelated to moral theory and either stands or falls with them.  If there is any true thing, there could be a morally true thing.  End of.  Either you think there are true things or you don't.

I think if you are asserting an objective truth, you should be able to demonstrate that (1) it exists, and (2) it is in fact an objective truth. Otherwise, there's little point bothering to argue it.

In short...you're an asshole arguing like an asshole, to no effect.  Is confusion in that case really any wonder?

Is that objectively true, or just your opinion? nvm, good luck with this, but I've got real problems right now, and I would like to avoid this kind of interaction. exeunt.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, both statements are deplorably simple.  I believe that abortion is wrong because and if (fill in the blanks) - and if not, or because not,...than not.  -That's- moral realism.

Okay, fill in the blanks however you want.  I'm eager to see what an objective moral truth looks like!

Like any other truth  - that's the kicker.

No.....I don't .....actually...just like I don't have to establish that there is a correct answer to the question of what one plus one is.  That's assumed in theories wholly unrelated to moral theory and either stands or falls with them.  If there is any true thing, there could be a morally true thing.  End of.  Either you think there are true things or you don't.

I think if you are asserting an objective truth, you should be able to demonstrate that (1) it exists, and (2) it is in fact an objective truth.  Otherwise, there's little point bothering to argue it.

Sure.  Beyond any blanket objection..though, we'd have to consider what the truth of that issue -is-.

The issue of abortion is complicated.  In a vacuum I'd say it was wrong..but because we don't live in a vacuum and even though I think it would be wrong in a vacuum I think it's objectively acceptable....at least.

In short...you're an asshole arguing like an asshole, to no effect.  Is confusion in that case really any wonder?

Is that objectively true, or just your opinion?  nvm, good luck with this, but I've got real problems right now, and I would like to avoid this kind of interaction.  exeunt.

It is, yes.