You have
"One ought do X" is true when everyone believes it's true.
And yet you seem to deny
"You ought to do what everyone believes you should" — Banno
So why is your assessment superior to the Bible's? Why do objective moral rules only apply to persons who understand them? — frank
There's an article on moral realism in SEP as well (as on moral anti-realism), the one from which my quote came. It does not use "objective" in the definition, but notes
" ...although some accounts of moral realism see it as involving additional commitments, say to the independence of the moral facts from human thought and practice, or to those facts being objective in some specified way."
I've said before I don't really care what you call it. the interesting bit is that moral statements have a truth value. — Banno
Human psychology isn't a slave to some supposed duty. — Michael
It was a discussion from several years ago that I mentioned in passing. I didn't mean to bring it into this discussion. — Michael
Do you see the difference? — hypericin
There is a common confusion and category error between theories about "morality", and moral theories. Only the latter involves true normativity. There is moral subjectivism as a theory about "morality," and then there is moral subjectivism as a moral theory. I have argued against the latter; you are proposing the former. I don't think it is incoherent to say that every moral claim is about societal expectations (but I do think it is wrong). Similarly, I wouldn't think it incoherent to say that every moral claim is really about the lengths of different giraffes' necks. Neither one is incoherent in the sense of self-defeating. But I do think it is incoherent to appeal to these sort of claims while at the same time espousing a moral theory (i.e. a normative theory). — Leontiskos
I'm not saying that my assessment is superior to the Bible's. I'm simply providing you with a coherent account of moral realism that can explain for why morality applies to humans but not cockroaches. — Michael
↪Michael Ok. That was not clear. — Banno
Would you agree that a persuasive argument for moral realism is going to have to account for why morality attaches only to certain kinds of intelligence? — frank
It is a kind of definition or stipulation — Leontiskos
Needs must. It's a response to my interlocutors.↪Banno You're too obsessed with "isms". — Michael
This thread is fast becoming inane. I suggest you take your recent, thoughtful post and start a new thread, perhaps setting out your thesis in a bit more detail. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.