Minimally, moral realism is just the theory that moral propositions have mind independent truth values. The often derided idea that MR requires a domain of supernatural truth makers is a maximal form.
For those who give significant weight to the possibility that morals are real, in the “acually have some effect on the universe” sense
Minimal MR does not require such causal influence.
So, how do you justify MR without exotic ontology,?
*Some natural facts are also moral facts (Sam Harris seems to believe something like this)
*It evolved (possible amounting to the above)
*It works like logic …
*..or decision theory..
*...or game theory...
*Or it’s constructed (possibly the same as some of the above).
Arguments against subjectivism and constructivism are to some extent arguments for realism. (Not entirely because nihilism, error theory and non cognitivism are options).
We often have posts exploring morality, and I find the premise that it’s anything but a social consensus of human preferences
The classic argument is
the open question argument...for any socially constructed system of morality, it’s seems reasonable to ask whether it’s really true (whereas it makes a lot less sense to ask whether a personal preference is really a personal preference).
Some forms of mild realism can answer the Open Question: if morality is constructed by societies for a purpose , it can fail at the purpose, and therefore be “wrong” in a sense. Compare with things like financial and political systems which are constructed but can still be better or worse ..under the circumstances. Moderate realism can avoid the central problem of relativism , which is that any society is good by its own standards.
Societies need to create morality, because their interests as a whole can conflict with the interests of their members...societies need brave soldiers to sacrifice themselves on foreign field, but their members do not want to be sacrificed.
My intuition that there’s something “real” about morality seems to come from a sense that the consensus process would be expected to arise naturally across a wide variety of initial universe configurations. the more social a species is, the more they seem to have a sense of doing-well-by other beings
It’s hard to see how an asocial society would need morality at all..if you were alone on a desert island , there is no one one to steal from , murder, etc. But it doesn’t follow from that , that all societies will converge on the same morality...only that they need some kind of morality. Circumstances differ.
That only describes how individuals make decisions in their own interests. Morality is about doing things you otherwise wouldn’t. That’s why it needs to be backed by persuasion and threats.
Thanks. Can you describe a bit more about #2 “Abstract objects are real”? I don’t see how this could be believed. There are elements of reality that correspond pretty well to abstract objects, but never (AFAIK) precisely—there are always variants or finer-grained measurements that don’t match the abstraction
The idea is not that there is some material object that perfectly exemplifies an abstraction, -- it’s the idea is that abstract objects exist immaterially and eternally.
Minimally, moral realism is just the theory that moral propositions have mind independent truth values. The often derided idea that MR requires a domain of supernatural truth makers is a maximal form.
Minimal MR does not require such causal influence.
So, how do you justify MR without exotic ontology,?
*Some natural facts are also moral facts (Sam Harris seems to believe something like this)
*It evolved (possible amounting to the above)
*It works like logic …
*..or decision theory..
*...or game theory...
*Or it’s constructed (possibly the same as some of the above).
Arguments against subjectivism and constructivism are to some extent arguments for realism. (Not entirely because nihilism, error theory and non cognitivism are options).
The classic argument is the open question argument...for any socially constructed system of morality, it’s seems reasonable to ask whether it’s really true (whereas it makes a lot less sense to ask whether a personal preference is really a personal preference).
Some forms of mild realism can answer the Open Question: if morality is constructed by societies for a purpose , it can fail at the purpose, and therefore be “wrong” in a sense. Compare with things like financial and political systems which are constructed but can still be better or worse ..under the circumstances. Moderate realism can avoid the central problem of relativism , which is that any society is good by its own standards.
Societies need to create morality, because their interests as a whole can conflict with the interests of their members...societies need brave soldiers to sacrifice themselves on foreign field, but their members do not want to be sacrificed.
It’s hard to see how an asocial society would need morality at all..if you were alone on a desert island , there is no one one to steal from , murder, etc. But it doesn’t follow from that , that all societies will converge on the same morality...only that they need some kind of morality. Circumstances differ.
@lesswronguser123
That only describes how individuals make decisions in their own interests. Morality is about doing things you otherwise wouldn’t. That’s why it needs to be backed by persuasion and threats.
@Dagon
The idea is not that there is some material object that perfectly exemplifies an abstraction, -- it’s the idea is that abstract objects exist immaterially and eternally.
@Richard_Kennaway
That’s a theory, not a fact.
It is a thing I claim to be true.