about moral realism

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

about moral realism

Post by Metacrock » Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:19 am

Is it just me or does moral realim remind anyone of presuppositonalism they way they assert "this is true because ti's my view and it has to be true?"

Is it the case that I'm just missing some clear delineation of how they know what's moral or is my hunch correct that they never really say how they know? I can't get the one's on carm to say it.

They closest they've come is Lance says he has an intuitive sense. But then so do I. Isn't that just the same thing everyone can say?

I would like to know how Fleet sees moral realism?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: about moral realism

Post by runamokmonk » Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:44 pm

"this is true because ti's my view and it has to be true?"

This is what it sounds like to me too (I think..). I was trying to say it better than how you did here, but have not thought of how to say it yet.

It sounds like this to me~

"If one's moral view is not a truthbearer, then the next choice is that there is no truth-values in moral statements."

Opinion~
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.


How can something be called a fact, but no explanation on how you arrived on that fact?

I think it's too much for my brain maybe.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: about moral realism

Post by Metacrock » Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:56 am

WE should explore that concept of "truth bearer" ideas. This seems to me to point beyond itself to a truth that is not grounded in the idea alone. Not only so but how do you know what is a truth bearer idea?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: about moral realism

Post by fleetmouse » Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:40 am

Oh, I like where this is going.

A truth bearer is something that can have a truth VALUE, which means it can be considered true OR false. It can be an idea, a belief, a sentence, a proposition, etc.

"Mitt Romney is Emperor of the Russian Territories" is a truth bearer which happens to be false.

"The value of Pi is seven" is another false truth bearer.

"Apples are the best fruit" is not a truth bearer. Best by what standard? It's more like an enthusiastic expression of sentiment. "Apples are my favorite fruit" on the other hand is a truth bearer because it might or might not be true.

Now, are moral propositions truth bearers? Is "murder is wrong" a valid candidate for truth? If you say yes, then you're a moral realist.

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: about moral realism

Post by runamokmonk » Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:02 am

If, 'apples are the best fruit' is not a truth bearer because of the lack of a standard.

And if it is a truth bearer to state it a fact that 'apples are my favorite fruit'. Because it can be true or false.

Then when one says, 'murder is wrong', and it is a truth bearer. What standard are they using? Or, is this simply like the second apple statement, 'murder is wrong in my mind'.

I was trying to get into this up above but deleted it

You can turn a subjective statement into a factual one. Apples are the greatest tasting, is not a fact. You can turn it into a fact by stating, so and so says apples are the greatest.

I am wondering how something is known to be true or false. What is the standard?

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: about moral realism

Post by fleetmouse » Tue Oct 02, 2012 5:19 pm

Let's keep two issues clearly separate.

1. The proposition "murder is wrong" is either a truth bearer or not a truth bearer. If it is a truth bearer, it can either be true or false. A truth bearer isn't something that's true, that bears truth on its back like a faithful donkey. It can also bear falsity.

2. if you agree that it's a truth bearer, we can discuss whether it's true or false, and why, and what standards apply (and why those standards are the "right" standards). But until we agree that it's valid to assign truth values to the proposition AT ALL, we can't even get to that stage. On the other hand maybe you think asking whether it's true or false is a category error, like asking whether or not the ocean is communist. That would make you a moral non-cognitivist or nihilist.

So where do you stand? Are moral propositions suitable to be considered true-or-false?

(BTW, we don't have to know whether something is actually true or actually false say that it's truth-apt. The statement "there is a red ball in this box" is truth apt, either true or false, whether or not we know what's actually in the box.)

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: about moral realism

Post by runamokmonk » Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:09 pm

I know what truth bearer meant in my last post in regards to what I said.

I cannot say for sure at this very moment if moral propositions are because I would have to consider it more.


I will think about the statements above and my thoughts.

Before I did not relate God to higher principles, I did not think in terms of moral propositions. And I don't know how much, if it all, I thought of morality in terms of true and false.

What made sense to me was not doing to others I would not want done to me. And, expect the same goodness for others I would want for myself.

This seemed to make sense to me and still does. I did not think in terms of true and false. I thought it would be wrong of me to be outright inconsistent in this.

Before I would consider it wrong to murder because of an inner conscience and because I also would not want to be murdered.

I would think murder is wrong because of the value attached to humans or life. How could murder be false in this? Even with God, it would be wrong because of the love for humans or creation.

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: about moral realism

Post by runamokmonk » Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:12 pm

So, I actually am stuck at the true and false. But you and others can talk and I will and comment if I feel like it.

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: about moral realism

Post by fleetmouse » Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:42 pm

This is really weird to me - this thread and you having to go off and think about it - because it's almost always the atheists who are anti realists and the theists who are realists with regard to morality. I mean look at Nietzsche, a big part of his career was hissing and sputtering against moral realism.

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: about moral realism

Post by runamokmonk » Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:47 pm

What? I was being serious. How can I answer something definite when I am not even sure?

Post Reply