In the end it's all about power. — praxis

It's about how the mind can best determine an increase of what is vital for the body to prolong its existence. So, perhaps. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), we become blinded by that which we do not understand, and so inevitably make choices that seem wise or conducive to this psychotic goal, yet eventually... make a fatal misstep. And so, the pendulum of power is, perhaps doomed, perhaps favored, to swing back and forth, forevermore. Some ranges of motion simply take longer than others. To no credit of those who become unwitting pawns of fate that a lost world has no choice but to imagine they have any control or influence over. Which they ultimately do not. No mortal does.

anti-realism is not a coherent perspective, it's just a means of labeling a position one finds threatening — ProtagoranSocratist

"Anti-realism" in meta-ethics just refers to the claim that there are no facts about values; which is quite popular as a position. Plenty of people embrace this term as a label for their own ideas; I am pretty sure it is coined by anti-realists themselves.

I don't believe that one can make such a 'hard distinction' between scientific truths and moral truths. — boundless

The Count was quick to point this out and I agree.

I think human reality is largely shaped by human needs or purposes—and human values. We don’t share the same values however, so if there are objective values, who is right and who is wrong? And what is the purpose of insisting that one set of values is Correct? It provides the means to harness collective power.

I think Bonobos might come a little closer to virtues than Chimpanzees because of the difference in their social organization. The leap from these species to humans is huge, and apparently, that is so because of the organization of our brains and social order. Science is now claiming that Neanderthals were closer to modern humans than we once thought. Why they are hidden in our genes but also became extinct is still up for debate. Was it social order or verbal skills that made the difference between Neanderthals and modern humans?

I read, in a research lab, that a Bomobo bit a researcher after saying he would do so if the worker did not correct a wrong. That is how an animal without language sets its boundaries. There is a claim that some of these animals learn enough language to communicate verbally. They are social animals with some rules determining right and wrong behavior, but not the language to be philosophical. Even horses are said to pass culture on to their offspring. I hope that discussion culture falls under the subject of ethics and morals.

We might to able to identify our major cultures and if they there are social differences in their morals and ethics. But I also think our Western understanding of Asians is not adequate for the task.

Would you like to pick up from here and say something? We might consider how different the discussion would go if we held a more scientific mindset, as opposed to assuming Christianity pretty much covers the subjects of morals and ethics, and proceeded with Protestant assumptions.

"Anti-realism" in meta-ethics just refers to the claim that there are no facts about values; which is quite popular as a position. Plenty of people embrace this term as a label for their own ideas; I am pretty sure it is coined by anti-realists themselves. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Okay, for me the phrasing instead would be "subjectivist", which states moral truths exist, but ONLY subjectively. So that still means i can use moral values if they are beneficial to my selfish interests, or ignore them if they appear harmful or immoral. I don't know if Ayn Rand ever called herself that, her excuse was rationalism.

I think claiming there are "no facts about values" is confusing, because facts tend to imply shared information, and there are plenty of those. However, i guess some folks see anti-realism as the best framing for their suspicions on morality.

Interestingly, geocentrism most definitely expressed anthropocentric values and Galileo paid the price for extracting those values from astronomy. In the end it's all about power. — praxis

It was actually Nietzsche who argued this in "Geaneology of Morality", that "the good people" are just the powerful imposing what is "good" on the basis of what is good for them. To me, the point of how to make life better for everyone with a loss of moral absolutism is an interesting one, yet i'm pretty it's impossible currently given that human psychology tends to be more motivated by fear and anxiety than pleasure.

It's not sustainable to ascribe to and abide by a moral system that disregards how the world really works. Idealism like that drives people crazy. — baker

I personally don't think think it's impossible for those things to happen, and it really depends on what attacking and punishing looks like. It's not idealism to know that the hierarchically powerful are not all powerful or godlike.

Maybe you can't assassinate a president and expect to get away with it, but i would suspect a president's cabinet members do hurt them sometimes, but in a much more minor way. I would argue that believing in the social infallibility of leaders is crazier than thinking it's impossible to harm them without getting away with it.

As an example: let's say a single parent is abusing their kids. Wouldn't it be possible for that kid to kill the parent and get away with it? It would be much easier for the kid to do that if there weren't police, and it wouldn't necessarily be good for the kid's future, but i'm just saying that it's possible.

This strange idea that philosophy should be cut off from real life ... — baker

nah i'm unfortunately just a sensitive person and sometimes i don't want to talk about specific things on the internet ;-) I don't think it can be fully cut off from other things you do, even though it's always the case that people are like "let's not talk about this, let's do something else", and sometimes that approach appears necessary for group cohesion. I was having some thoughts about how punishments for extreme crimes could be improved to be less harmful and less hypocritical, but i am not quite ready to start a discussion on that kind of a rabbit hole here yet.