Moral Realism

[dóxatotheó]

Moral realism is the view that there are facts of the matter about which actions are right and which wrong, and about which things are good and which bad.
rules are absolute and can't be changed. Punishment should be determined by how much damage is done, and the intention of the child is not taken into account.

For example, a child operating in the stage of moral realism would believe thata child who accidentally breaks three cups should be punished more than a childwho breaks one cup on purpose.

Gradually, as a child matures, he or she understands that people make rules and people can change them: the beginnings of Piaget's morality of cooperation. Eventually, both the damage done and the intention of the offender in a given moral dilemma are considered in this stageof moral development

Kohlberg Tutorial

 

[gaara4158]

I’m not sure what your thesis is here. In another thread you attempt to discredit evolutionary explanations for human morality, which is one of the strongest objections to moral realism, and yet here you seem to concede that moral realism tends to lead us to dole out punishments inappropriately. What model of morality would you say best represents your views?

 

[dóxatotheó]

I’m not sure what your thesis is here. In another thread you attempt to discredit evolutionary explanations for human morality, which is one of the strongest objections to moral realism, and yet here you seem to concede that moral realism tends to lead us to dole out punishments inappropriately. What model of morality would you say best represents your views?

this is a thread on moral realism on what it is, secondly, im a theist obviously im a moral absolutist

 

[gaara4158]

this is a thread on moral realism on what it is, secondly, im a theist obviously im a moral absolutist

You may be surprised at how much room there is for theists and atheists to take either position on moral ontology. In any case, have you started a thread simply to define a term, or are you open to critiques of moral realism in this thread?

 

[dóxatotheó]

have you started a thread simply to define a term, or are you open to critiques of moral realism in this thread?

I made the thread to define it and hear peoples positions I will start debates on these in the future.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Moral realism is the view that there are facts of the matter about which actions are right and which wrong, and about which things are good and which bad.
rules are absolute and can't be changed. Punishment should be determined by how much damage is done, and the intention of the child is not taken into account.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, you are making a fundamental error here. You start off by talking about facts and you switch to talking about rules. Facts and rules are two different things. Facts exist independent of consciousness but rules do not. There are facts of the matter from which we can discover what actions are right and wrong but these facts don't equal rules. The rules or principles are formulated from these facts by a conceptual consciousness in relation to a goal. The goal is life and happiness.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, you are making a fundamental error here. You start off by talking about facts and you switch to talking about rules. Facts and rules are two different things. Facts exist independent of consciousness but rules do not. There are facts of the matter from which we can discover what actions are right and wrong but these facts don't equal rules. The rules or principles are formulated from these facts by a conceptual consciousness in relation to a goal. The goal is life and happiness.

This was a defining of the two not an explanation for specific ideals.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

This was a defining of the two not an explanation for specific ideals.

Moral realism is the view that moral principles exist out there in reality apart from man's mind and that we discover them just as we might discover a seashell on the beach. This is the intrinsic view of morality.

In reality, the facts exist out there apart from man's mind and we, using reason, formulate the rules or principles based on these facts. This is the objective view of morality.
The objective view of morality holds that moral principles are facts based but a product of a process of gognition. So we can refute the intrinsic view of morality because it proposes that principles exist outside of the mind. What most people mean by objective morality is really intrinsic morallity. But intrinsic morallity assumes concepts without cognition which is again an instance of the fallacy of the stolen concept.

An objective moral principle is an absolute provided that one appeal to facts throughout the entire process of cognition and that one adheres exclusively to the primacy of existence with no concession to the primacy of consciousness.

In contrast, the subjective view of concepts holds that concepts are merely mental constructions with no connection to any facts and they are formulated exclusively on the basis of the primacy of consciousness

 

[dóxatotheó]

Moral realism is the view that moral principles exist out there in reality apart from man's mind and that we discover them just as we might discover a seashell on the beach. This is the intrinsic view of morality.

In reality, the facts exist out there apart from man's mind and we, using reason, formulate the rules or principles based on these facts. This is the objective view of morality.
The objective view of morality holds that moral principles are facts based but a product of a process of gognition. So we can refute the intrinsic view of morality because it proposes that principles exist outside of the mind. What most people mean by objective morality is really intrinsic morallity. But intrinsic morallity assumes concepts without cognition which is again an instance of the fallacy of the stolen concept.

An objective moral principle is an absolute provided that one appeal to facts throughout the entire process of cognition and that one adheres exclusively to the primacy of existence with no concession to the primacy of consciousness.

In contrast, the subjective view of concepts holds that concepts are merely mental constructions with no connection to any facts and they are formulated exclusively on the basis of the primacy of consciousness

full explanation jeez man no summaries?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

full explanation jeez man no summaries?

Do you want me to write a comprehensive treatise on morality in an internet forum post? I've given you the outline, now go and validate it for yourself. Here is a more full explanation of the intrinsic, objective, subjective trichotomy:

 

[stevevw]

Moral realism is the view that there are facts of the matter about which actions are right and which wrong, and about which things are good and which bad.
rules are absolute and can't be changed. Punishment should be determined by how much damage is done, and the intention of the child is not taken into account.

For example, a child operating in the stage of moral realism would believe thata child who accidentally breaks three cups should be punished more than a childwho breaks one cup on purpose.

Gradually, as a child matures, he or she understands that people make rules and people can change them: the beginnings of Piaget's morality of cooperation. Eventually, both the damage done and the intention of the offender in a given moral dilemma are considered in this stageof moral development

I don't think Moral Realism has much to do about measuring punishment. Its only about the position that there are mind-independent facts about ethics that are true and binding even if we have beliefs to the contrary.

I dont think moral realism makes morals absolute as objective morality can accommodate circumstances. It just means that in any moral situation there is a moral truth that is beyond subjective views.

But what I think defines moral realism is that it makes morality real. This focuses on how humans actually live morally and how we live like morality is objective.

But its not just that we live like morality is objective but that we make certain moral truths the only alternative. You cannot and should not do that under subjective morality.

So the proof in the pudding so to speak for moral realism. We cannot help but treat morality as objective and because we intuitive know these moral truths we cannot hep by acting them out. Thus even moral subjectivists acknowledge moral truths.