Before coming anywhere close to talking about arguments for or against Moral Realism, I'm curious how y'all stand on the question. I have come to suspect that my view (I am a Moral Realist and an Ethical Naturalist to boot) is a waaaay minority opinion among Atheists and even some Theists.
Moral Realism(11 posts) (8 voices)
I will start by saying that my knowledge on this topic is limited, but I'm doing my best now to learn (via the internet guru Wikipedia).
So I would like to ask your help in understanding this a bit better. So as an agnostic I don't believe in any God(s), but I also cannot say for sure if one does or does not exist. In addition to this, I believe I'm fairly Nihilist in my thinking that there are no preset moral rules to the universe, and so killing someone isn't wrong. However, I do believe that we as humans have created morals to govern our interactions and determine what is wrong (through various types of evolution). These morals change overtime, but generally seem to stay around some variation of the golden rule. So, would I just be labeled as a Nihilist?
Sorry for answering your question with another question. ^_^
Hmm, that does seem pretty close. Thank you.
This is an area I'm just starting to get into, so I won't claim to be an expert on it. My general beliefs are as follows:
- I could be considered an Existentialist because I believe that life has no inherent meaning, but that it is up to the individual to give his or her own life meaning. I also believe that because of this, the existence or non-existence of a God is irrelevant to the lives of human beings, i.e. if God exists, he certainly acts as though he doesn't and therefore we cannot rely on him to give our life meaning.
- I believe that there are preset morals that apply to the human race. These morals apply to all humanity, but do not apply to other creatures or any other hypothetical species that may exist. Yet at the same time, and I haven't yet worked out if this is a contradiction, I would also regard myself to be a Consequentalist in that I believe that right and wrong can only be determined by looking at the context of an action.
I need more context. Wikipedia completely unhelpful...
I am fairly thoroughly committed to the idea that there is a real, correct moral action in any given situation. I think people get closer to or farther from this correct moral action. I don't know how close this is to a moral realist position.
I'm confused about what morality corresponds to in the real world, under a moral realist system.
Moral Realism, boiled down, is the notion that much like there are objective physical facts about objects, there are objective moral facts about actions; these objective facts additionally do not depend on other entities, they inhere in the subject and/or object of the action directly. The major consequence of this notion is that moral statements have a truth value (i.e. if the axioms are known, any moral statement can be logically shown to be either true or false), just like logical implicative statements about regular propositions have a truth value.
It's a meta-ethical position about what is meant when we make value statements. There are many competitors to Moral Realism, like Divine Command theory (which argues that moral statements' truth is dependent upon God subjectively imbuing the act with value), Moral Subjectivism (there are no objective moral facts, acts are imbued with value by subjects that experience them or hear reports about them), Moral Nihilism (that moral statements cannot be assigned legitimate truth values at all, and are merely functional placeholders for desirable attitudes), and Non-Cognitivism (that moral statements are logical nonsense and have no referents).
you and your deep questions, making me think. don't you know? the internet is designed to destroy thought, not create it.
anyway, i'm more of a subjective kind of guy.
This makes my brain hurt
Does it make me a moral nihilist if I think that morality is fairly subjective? Currently, I've been amazed at the evolution of morality when I look back at history and see how morals have changed and how they differ depending on the society. I guess I see morality as determined by groups of people and the more educated and prosperous the people, the more evolved their morality. Also, morals shift depending on specific situations. Stealing is wrong. But Robin Hood was considered a hero. Murder is wrong but some think the death penalty is moral. It seems like morals are passed on and modified as time goes on. Can't say I've actually studied any of this so these are just impressions.
I agree that Wikipedia article was of little help to the lay-reader.
I really don't know what all this means either. I was thinking about morality yesterday while waiting for a light to change, and that it all sort of boils down to cooperation. Different people have different ideas as to their role in social cooperation. Sometimes they have to put up traffic lights to keep people from crashing into each other. I know that's so deeeeeeeep. :) People argue about right and wrong all the time, how much or whether to give. Some people are too proud to ask for help. I don't know if there's a perfection in there, a distinct right moral answer to everything. I don't really even know if I've understood the idea and said anything relevant.
Mostly, I don't take to labels very well, and wonder whether it's possible or necessary to be philosophically pure. Life and situations don't always fit into a box, you can't tape that box closed, you can't label it. It is like when you move, and you write "kitchen" on a few boxes, and you have to open them all up when you get there to find which one has the spoons, and the coffee maker is in another box, and your mug is broken. Even though you think you packed in a certain order so you could make coffee as soon as you arrive, you encounter a problem, so you walk over to the 7-11 and buy a cup of coffee there. You are probably saying "Whaaaa?" So am I.
You must log in to post.