I have yet to read a single convincing argument for moral realism (pt2)

[vespertine]

You might aswell debate truth and not morality pmo pmo

patience, i'll get to you some other time i can only focus on one at a time

 

[Aryy]

patience, i'll get to you some other time i can only focus on one at a time

I will only read this thread if you debate with over0

 

[Penalizer69]

I will only read this thread if you debate with over0

Y

 

[Aryy]

Y

complicated and i will not elaborate

 

[vespertine]

This is the problem btw, you're "debating" people on morality when you fundamentally disagree on the definition of truth and refuse to budge

i think its true that humans don't like to suffer and like to avoid suffering because we've evolved in such a way. i think its true that the speed of light in a vacuum is a certain speed which doesn't need a human mind to witness it for it to be that speed.

1. Suffering is real
2. Humans universally/naturally avoid it
3. Therefore moral facts are objective?

none of it crosses the line into what moral realism actually needs to deliver. you'd need a fact about wrongness that exists the way physical constants do.

 

[Penalizer69]

i think its true that the speed of light in a vacuum is a certain speed which doesn't need a human mind to witness it for it to be that speed.

Except there's proof that matter reacts differently when not observed therefore it's not a truth by your definition

1. Suffering is real
2. Humans universally/naturally avoid it
3. Therefore moral facts are objective?

none of it crosses the line into what moral realism actually needs to deliver. you'd need a fact about wrongness that exists the way physical constants do.

I dont agree with the process there and you're still proving my point that you need to come to some sort of neutral ground in order for this debate to be any more than he said she said

 

[vespertine]

Except there's proof that matter reacts differently when not observed therefore it's not a truth by your definition

this is a non-sequitur. the observer effect in quantum mechanics doesn't need conscious minds just something to interfere at all.

I dont agree with the process there and you're still proving my point that you need to come to some sort of neutral ground in order for this debate to be any more than he said she said

do you think suffering would be wrong in a universe with no minds to evaluate it?

 

[twinkdestroyer]

i love this thread and all of its integrants

 

[draftLexy]

I had this conversation for 4h straighr while i was drunk
The conclusion we came to is
People always had empathy and got morals for their own survival like in a group tribal setting
and the creation of religion steered there ideas and moral in different directions

 

[vespertine]

i love this thread and all of its integrants

i dont even get what we disagree on.

moral realism "is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

all the arguments i'm hearing are about human psychology and biology and only support that moral "facts" are the products of human minds and evolution.

 

[twinkdestroyer]

i dont even get what we disagree on.

moral realism "is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion)."

all the arguments i'm hearing are about human psychology and biology and only support that moral "facts" are the products of human minds and evolution.

I guess this just proves we are programmed and unavailable of having an inherent opinion, which is why you and I will have sex tonight

 

[vespertine]

i have little left in me

 

[vespertine]

I guess this just proves we are programmed and unavailable of having an inherent opinion, which is why you and I will have sex tonight

ok i have SOME left in me

 

[Penalizer69]

this is a non-sequitur. the observer effect in quantum mechanics doesn't need conscious minds just something to interfere at all.

do you think suffering would be wrong in a universe with no minds to evaluate it?

In a universe with no minds there's no suffering, intelligence is what creates suffering. We live in a world with intelligence so there's no point in what if but ifs

 

[wolzy]

well i don't need people that agree with me here bud

it’s not about agreeing r****d theres literally no philosophical or scientific justification for those moral values, if you’re looking for someone to debate the validity of those beliefs they will likely be religious.

you’ve already acknowledged the social function of the morality used, so there’s nothing to debate. that’s all it does, serve a social function whether it be control, division, unity, etc.

 

[Starlet]

the fact that moral truths are not measurabel in the same way as physical facts does not necessarily mean they are unreal. after all, many things we regard as objective such as logci mathematic or rational consistency are not physical objects either a moral realist could argue that "murder is wrong" is not merely a preference but a truth discoverable through reason because the unjustified destruction of conscious beings directly contradicts the conditions required for human flourishing and moral agency while moral disagreement certainly exists disagreement alone does not disprove objectivitypeople disagree about science history, and mathematics as well yet few would conclude that there are no objective facts in those domains if anything the nearuniversal condemnation of murder across cultures may suggest that human beings are recognizing a genuine moral reality rather than simply expressing arbitrary preferences

hope this helps

perfect explanation imo

 

[viasco]

oh this is easy bro. i beat the dog shit out of you & then slap the shit out of your mother, you wont be happy. so treat mfks how you want to be treated. there you go argument over

 

[Starlet]

mathematical and logical truths are necessarily true. 2+2 equals 4 in any possible world and denying it makes a contradiction. "murder is wrong" isn't like that. you can coherently imagine a universe where conscious beings exist and murder carries no wrongness. it could just be a fact about what happens like a rock falling. there is no contradiction in a universe with suffering but no wrongness.

and why is flourishing objectively good? when you appeal to whats good for conscious beings you're assuming the interest of conscious beings matter.

again, i'm not denying moral claims are useful and important for society to function because of human social values. human social values also aren't reflective of some objective fact of the universe.

I think this is really a difference in world view. The objective reality with math point could very well be argued, and it is often, the question of whether or not math was created or simply discovered, but I think the most obvious answer would be that the concepts existed independent of us but all our means of conceptualizing it and putting it into words are constructed.

I tend to think of things in a very pragmatist sort of way, so basically whatever works is what is true or “correct”. And when things like the belief of murder being wrong is so universal and fundamental and innately biological it’s can be reasonable to conclude that it works and from that that it is in a way objective for us. Meaning isn’t often concrete, it depends on its interactions with other things. Like a key would have no purpose and would be useless without a lock. Don’t know if I explained this well but yeah

 

[Starlet]

You might aswell debate truth and not morality pmo pmo

ultra realist over here

 

[übermenschgrimreaper]

perfect explanation imo

thanks

 

[Starlet]

thanks

your english isn’t bad at all

 

[übermenschgrimreaper]

your english isn’t bad at all

well I’m not rlly sure about that I’ve been raised in Germany and I learned English by watching English videos as a kid and later on watching fucking debates it’s so funny icl yes i am currently learning English in school but I haven’t before and somehow I have straight as in english BUT I sometimes see my own mistakes which irritates me.

 

[Starlet]

well I’m not rlly sure about that I’ve been raised in Germany and I learned English by watching English videos as a kid and later on watching fucking debates it’s so funny icl yes i am currently learning English in school but I haven’t before and somehow I have straight as in english BUT I sometimes see my own mistakes which irritates me.

I’m fluent spoken it my whole life in America and I can already tell you you’re better than a lot of native speakers

 

[vespertine]

In a universe with no minds there's no suffering, intelligence is what creates suffering. We live in a world with intelligence so there's no point in what if but ifs

there you go. you've conceded that moral facts are mind dependent which makes you an anti-realist.

 

[femboysNaddie]

i want a serious argument. i just want someone to explain how "muder is wrong" or some other given moral "fact" is as true as 2+2=4 or an electron having a negative charge. i'm not denying moral claims are useful and important for society to function because of human social values.

morals are genetic

 

[vespertine]

oh this is easy bro. i beat the dog shit out of you & then slap the shit out of your mother, you wont be happy. so treat mfks how you want to be treated. there you go argument over

 

[vespertine]

there you go. you've conceded that moral facts are mind dependent which makes you an anti-realist.

you answered a different question as well. you answered whether suffering would exist without minds, when i asked whether it would be wrong. moral realism needs minds to be irrelevant to whether something is wrong or not. if wrongness disappears when minds disappear than its a feature of minds not of reality independent of them.

 

[vespertine]

I think this is really a difference in world view. The objective reality with math point could very well be argued, and it is often, the question of whether or not math was created or simply discovered, but I think the most obvious answer would be that the concepts existed independent of us but all our means of conceptualizing it and putting it into words are constructed.

I tend to think of things in a very pragmatist sort of way, so basically whatever works is what is true or “correct”. And when things like the belief of murder being wrong is so universal and fundamental and innately biological it’s can be reasonable to conclude that it works and from that that it is in a way objective for us. Meaning isn’t often concrete, it depends on its interactions with other things. Like a key would have no purpose and would be useless without a lock. Don’t know if I explained this well but yeah

i don't even disagree with most of this. if by "objective for us" you're saying that moral truths are grounded in what works out for human needs than thats logical.

and if mathematical structures are discovered rather than invented than they are still only meaningful if their are minds to grasp them, there's no one for whom 2+2=4 is false or true. platonists about math don't argue that the angles and sides of a triangle have interests that generate obligations. there's an "ought" component that math doesn't have but which you need for proving moral realism.

 

[viasco]

View attachment 378568

right, the reason you think like this is because youve never got yo ass beat. it'll all click for you dw lil bro

 

[Starlet]

oh this is easy bro. i beat the dog shit out of you & then slap the shit out of your mother, you wont be happy. so treat mfks how you want to be treated. there you go argument over

right, the reason you think like this is because youve never got yo ass beat. it'll all click for you dw lil bro

@Nbernical this has genuinely proved to me that this man is only capable of the most basic surface level thinking and lacks reading comprehension

 

[vespertine]

right, the reason you think like this is because youve never got yo ass beat. it'll all click for you dw lil bro

actual 80 iq individual spotted in the wild.

what you and i want or don't want isn't indicative of some objective cosmic truth. the whole point of this debate is whether moral values are the product of human minds or not.

 

[viasco]

actual 80 iq individual spotted in the wild.

what you and i want or don't want isn't indicative of some objective cosmic truth. the whole point of this debate is whether moral values are the product of human minds or not.

View attachment 378589

just remember papa viasco love you. enjoy being ignorant & young. youll get your answers, trust we all do

 

[viasco]

@Nbernical this has genuinely proved to me that this man is only capable of the most basic surface level thinking and lacks reading comprehension

youre just projecting babe <3 be blessed.

 

[genio]

i want a serious argument. i just want someone to explain how "muder is wrong" or some other given moral "fact" is as true as 2+2=4 or an electron having a negative charge. i'm not denying moral claims are useful and important for society to function because of human social values.

Its wrong because you will die

 

[Starlet]

actual 80 iq individual spotted in the wild.

what you and i want or don't want isn't indicative of some objective cosmic truth. the whole point of this debate is whether moral values are the product of human minds or not.

View attachment 378589

yeah it’s just basically in the last metaphysical part where it collapses, but it probably wouldn’t be good to just use that label whenever since it can mean different things. moral relativism isn’t correct either imo

 

[vespertine]

just remember papa viasco love you. enjoy being ignorant & young. youll get your answers, trust we all do

imagine a red cube spinning in your mind

 

[Nbernical]

@Nbernical this has genuinely proved to me that this man is only capable of the most basic surface level thinking and lacks reading comprehension

Insults is all he knows, it's sad really

 

[Starlet]

Insults is all he knows, it's sad really

If only @Insomnia were here to clown him

 

[vespertine]

confession: i sit at home nervously checking my notifications waiting for over0 to slam dunk and destroy my arguments

 

[Penalizer69]

there you go. you've conceded that moral facts are mind dependent which makes you an anti-realist.

That fact relies on your view on the definition of truth which we don't share

 

[vespertine]

That fact relies on your view on the definition of truth which we don't share

than lets hear you define truth.

 

[Penalizer69]

than lets hear you define truth.

Subjective truth is all that matters. Objective truth can't be proven because mind must percieve of it's existence to confirm it and the mind is unreliable. There's no way to prove of anything.

 

[doll]

some moral truths exist independently of human opinion, the wrongness of murdering an innocent person is a strong example because it is not simply a matter of preference or culture. Murder unjustifiably violates a person's right to life, permanently deprives them of their future, and disregards their inherent moral worth. Even if an individual or society believed such an act was acceptable, that belief would not make it morally right. This suggests that the claim "murder is wrong" is objectively true, supporting the view that at least some moral facts exist independently of what people think.

i cant believe im genuinely witnessing a serious post from u

 

[vespertine]

Subjective truth is all that matters. Objective truth can't be proven because mind must percieve of it's existence to confirm it and the mind is unreliable. There's no way to prove of anything.

we started with moral realism and ended at "nothing can be proven" which i'd say tells us a great deal about how strong the case for moral anti-realism is

 

[Penalizer69]

we started with moral realism and ended at "nothing can be proven" which i'd say tells us a great deal about how strong the case for moral anti-realism is

The fact nothing can be proven doesn't mean that there's no value in acting as though things can be proven, but it does however prove that your views on truth and moral views contradict each other.

 

[vespertine]

The fact nothing can be proven doesn't mean that there's no value in acting as though things can be proven, but it does however prove that your views on truth and moral views contradict each other.

what contradiction specifically? pretty sure my views have been consistent. morals are mind dependent and reflect human evolution, and thats enough for ethics to guide my actions. we can act as though things are objectively true because its useful, not because they actually are true.

 

[limo8]

i want a serious argument. i just want someone to explain how "muder is wrong" or some other given moral "fact" is as true as 2+2=4 or an electron having a negative charge. i'm not denying moral claims are useful and important for society to function because of human social values.

idk what you mean tbh but i would like to listen what you have to say can we vc maybe?

 

[vespertine]

idk what you mean tbh but i would like to listen what you have to say can we vc maybe?

not today king

 

[limo8]

not today king

just say that you dont like me

 

[vespertine]

just say that you dont like me

no i wont say that