Miles, everyone, moral realism

[mdsimpson92]

what about value systems? don't they still have to be central to ethical theory?

Can you elaborate? Are we talking about cultural and societal norms or are we talking about the big three (util, deontology, virtue)? Or am I off?

[Metacrock]

what about value systems? don't they still have to be central to ethical theory?

Can you elaborate? Are we talking about cultural and societal norms or are we talking about the big three (util, deontology, virtue)? Or am I off?

the labels that designate meat ethical theories would be part of it. I still think ethical theories are based upon value systems. teleological ethicists are teleological becuase they value outcomes, they value the outcome because they don't believe in or they are trying to avoid the sense that they believe in duty or obligation to express their dislike for idealism.

Value systems can be more general. One disvalues or sets as disapprobation acts that violate value systems.

[mdsimpson92]

Oh, well, in that case obviously. I was thinking for some reason you were putting in how people's personal ethical systems affect morality and I was like "that sounds a tad too relativistic for you meta"

[runamokmonk]

Hi all,

Metacrock has stated that love is the background to the moral universe.

This of course fits easily into Christian theology. The highest form of love is willing the good, agape love.

I think that morality arises from values. I already subscribe to the idea that cooperation, and moral sentiment, arises from evolutionary processes. But I also believe God is somehow involved, possibly in a panentheistic way.

This 'will' would not exist if value was not attached to the person or humans. If the value is inherent this would fit in with religious thought. The Christian idea of being made in the image of God fits nicely with inherent value as well.

The value could also be attached from the individual doing the valuing. I think this would fit in with materialist or physicalist atheism. (Although, that is not say, this does not also fit in with the Christian theology of God's love for us.)

I do not see how inherent value could be real without an explanation of how one believes it to be so. If it is stated as fact I think it requires an explanation of how one arrived at that fact. The Christian already does so.

I have a hard time understanding, how it can be explained that a moral statement is a fact, while not taking into account the mind of the agent who speaks it. Relations between two different people may involve two very different moral developmental levels. And the reasons given for the moral statement may be very different depending on the developmental understanding of morality. Even though they may word the moral proposition the same way ("stealing is wrong"). The Christian also has the impetus to choose the higher over the lower of competing values.

Also, If one takes a universalist moral stance as being factual, I think that not only are there different moral developmental levels, but there are different moral behaviors between in-group and out-groups, especially in highly tribal or collectivist groups. So, I think this is also another reason that the moral realist should explain where their universal morality comes from, or is grounded in.

The Christian theology provides the universal morality of love.

[Metacrock]

Hey Runamuck good to see you again!

I appreciate what you say.

[runamokmonk]

Hey, good to see you too.

I also edited the above to make a couple things clearer. One thing was my comment about taking into account the mind/s that state the moral proposition. This is in regards to moral development and moral reasoning.

So, different individuals can state, "murder is wrong", using the same language but the moral reasons may be very different. Some could say, avoidance of punishment. A deeper reason would be agape love

So, I do think they also need to explain the reasoning of why things are wrong or right. This, I think, get closer to what they are grounding their morals in, such as social contract, or something.

I am surprised I have not yet seen moral realists, bring up the moral reasoning of the mind, which states the moral proposition, (on the net, at least).

[Metacrock]

Hey, good to see you too.

I also edited the above to make a couple things clearer. One thing was my comment about taking into account the mind/s that state the moral proposition. This is in regards to moral development and moral reasoning.

So, different individuals can state, "murder is wrong", using the same language but the moral reasons may be very different. Some could say, avoidance of punishment. A deeper reason would be agape love

So, I do think they also need to explain the reasoning of why things are wrong or right. This, I think, get closer to what they are grounding their morals in, such as social contract, or something.

I am surprised I have not yet seen moral realists, bring up the moral reasoning of the mind, which states the moral proposition, (on the net, at least).

I have come to think that one I was arguing with is just extraordinary stupid and doesn't represent a trend, although moral realism may well be the trend. I don't think he represented the nature of it.