Because at the end of the day, they do. It's what makes them realists.

Questions of morality are about what everyone should choose. — Banno

Only on the assumption that everyone is equal.

In practice, there are usually multiple standards of morality. E.g. "Members of group A hold it is immoral to kill a member of group A, but not immoral to kill member of group B." "It's wrong to lie, except to outsiders."

It's subjective in the sense that it's people who are talking about its existence.
— baker

I think it goes further. It's subjective in the sense that it is an artificial label upon something that has no conformity to the label other than in the mind of a subject who has accepted the command to apply the label to that plot of land. — AmadeusD

But for a realist, this makes no sense. For a realist, statements with "I think ..." or "From my perspective ..." are, at best, expressions of less-than-truth. A realist will not utter them (other than, perhaps, merely by force of habit).

And this is the kind of attitude that gets trumpism elected. Ser.

So what is there that is the opposite of "subjective", if we take this as a definition? What could be objective? Because there is nothing we could list here that is not by the very fact that we list it being talked about by people. And that would make everything subjective.

Can you give a better explanation of the distinction between subjective and objective? — Banno

I used the term "subjective" earlier in that particular context. Like I said:
Objectivists and moral realists talk as if it's not they, persons, who talk, but that when they open their mouths, The Absolute, Objective Truth comes out.

There are people to whom sentences like this make perfect sense:
"It's important to make good decisions; this is to say, not to decide merely in favor of that which is subjective, to one's liking, but to decide in line with what is true, what is objective."

Like, IIRC, you said, people tend to think (and wrongly so) that the line between subjective and objective is sharp and easy to demarcate.

I'm not a fan of the terms "subjective" and "objective". I think they are for the most part used for purposes of judging people, and for dismissing some people.
Some pairs come to mind:
good -- bad
righteous --sinful
objective -- subjective
informed -- uninformed
etc.
Depending on one's ideology, one uses the latter word in the pair for dismissing others. When a religious person wants to dismiss someone, they do so by calling the other person "sinful". When a scientist wants to dismiss someone, they do so by calling the other person "subjective". Etc.

What can be more natural to us than how we live, how we actually interact with the rest of the world? — Ciceronianus

Cunning.
Man is cunning.

And I refer here to the double meaning of the word "cunning", which in the beginning didn't have the negative connotation it tends to have nowadays.

With a bit of help, we can see UV. — Banno

With a lot of interpretation.

People who have significant eyesight problems generally know this is the case. Someone nearsighted will come to understand that what appears blurry to them at a distance won't appear blurry when closer to them, and as they live in an environment with others with no such problems, will come to know that they have a problem others don't have. Someone blind will come to know others are not. I think it's unlikely that the nearsighted and the blind will conclude that all are nearsighted and all are blind. — Ciceronianus

Speaking of vision problems: There are vision problems that are impossible to correct or compensate for with various devices. Such as color blindness, or certain depth vision problems (because of which the person cannot "see" some optical illusions). Unlike a person with dioptric problems, such a person never has the chance to experience what it would be like to see "normally". Instead, they have to take on trust that there is something wrong with their vision, and they need to compensate deliberately, both cognitively and behaviorally, in order to function in a world designed by people who mostly don't have such vision problems.

The salient point here is that sometimes we have to take it on trust that there is or might be something wrong with us, or that we have a blindness of some kind, even though we can at best recognize this blindness only indirectly. This having to take things on trust is a significant vulnerability.

course, people will generally make concessions of weakness, fault, or deficit when it comes to small or trivial things.
But they are unlikely to believe (much less openly admit) they might be blind in some way that matters.
— baker

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people admit they can't smell an intruder like a dog. — Hanover

Not having senses as acute as those of some animals or technological devices is common to all humans, so nothing special. There's no threat to one's ego to admit to such deficits.

But who would even consider that they might not know the truth about God, or about some moral issue? Even people who style themselves as "seekers" are actually still completely sure about everything.

We see in most cases exactly what we should see, being human. If that's the case, why is it that what we see isn't really what's there?

When we say we can't know what the world really or actually, I think we make certain assumptions, the primary of which is the assumption that there is something that is real behind what we experience which can't be determined. Something hidden from us because of our nature. It's a kind of religious view, perhaps. — Ciceronianus

Of course it's a religious/spiritual view. Religions/spiritualities start from the premise that _ordinary_ people don't see things "as they reallly are". (To which the religions/spiritualities then offer their solution: "Follow our religion/spirituality and then you will see things as they really are, and then you will be happy/content/self-actualized/self-realized.")

Decide for yourself. — Wayfarer

The whole point of objectivism or realism is to go beyond decision-making altogether.

@Hanover
Of course, people will generally make concessions of weakness, fault, or deficit when it comes to small or trivial things.
But they are unlikely to believe (much less openly admit) they might be blind in some way that matters.

If you accept moral realism, it's not because of any argument. It's just built in to your assumptions about the world. There is no good argument for moral realism. That there are moral truths does not show moral realism. — frank

In fact, "having reasons of justifications for accepting moral realism" would undermine the whole project.

But I think it's possible to pose as a moral realist. Perhaps most people who appear to be moral realists are in fact posing as such.

"London" is a subjective term? — Banno

It's subjective in the sense that it's people who are talking about its existence.

Objectivists and moral realists talk as if it's not they, persons, who talk, but that when they open their mouths, The Absolute, Objective Truth comes out.

You have a gut feeling that moral realism is false. — Michael

No. My gut feeling is that there might be a misnaming going on.
I suspect that some people merely pose as moral realists because it is often advantageous to do so.

Neither has empirical or self-evident rational justification.

I'm not sure about this. I revise my earlier statement that it's my gut feeling against theirs. I actually allow for the possibility that they might have a knowledge I don't have.

There is an objective, mind-independent, inaccessible fact-of-the-matter.

How do you know this?

@Michael
It's my gut feeling against theirs.

But it patently is not a state of affairs, and at very, very best, a description of one. What state of affairs outside of the mind indicates that command is universal? As far as i know, realists don't make absolute claims to a state of affairs, by noting a perception. — AmadeusD

For realists, "perspective" only exists to mean 'not knowing the truth, but merely having a perspective'.
If realists would acknowledge perspectivism as valid, they would cease being realists.

Possibly.

Do you claim that it is unreasonable to claim to know that something is false because their “gut feeling” tells them so? — Michael

Yes. Because guts aren't reasonable.

Moral realism is actually metaethical authoritarianism/egoism.

Issues of morality are inevitably about how people treat eachother. If one person says, "This is the truth and all else is wrong" and then punishes everyone who thinks otherwise, then that's simply authoritarianism.

I think it's unlikely that we are not blind in some regard we don't know about. — Hanover

It seems unlikely that many people believe this.

People can belive falsehoods? — Michael

How does a moral realist know something is false? Because their "gut feeling" tells them so?

@Michael
How do moral realists resolve descriptive moral relativism?
How do moral realists explain that different people have different ideas about what is right or wrong?
How do moral realists explain that some people believe that murder is wrong, but some other people believe that murder is not wrong?

@180 Proof You people already elected him once. Do you think the rest of the world (and perhaps even some Americans) have forgotten this? Do you think you can just move on from that, as if it never happened? No, it will take a lot to (re)gain trust after that first election. You'll have to prove that electing him the first time around was some perverse cosmic glitch, unique, and not an expression of what America really is.

And why can’t it be that one such state of affairs is that we ought not harm another? — Michael

It is one state of affairs among many. Now what?

The thing is that you're not distinguishing between my words and your interpretation of my words. You're conflating the two.

*sigh*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message


Can you formulate what you want to say in the form

"When Baker says [insert what you're referring to], I [Tom Storm] feel ____ / think ____ ."

You and your you-language.

I've never found it difficult to find others among the godless who are religiously / theologically well-read, especially here on TPF — 180 Proof

This has not been my experience.

But, nevermind. My "religious problem" has actually lost almost all the life there was to it, simply due to inertia. Over the years, I've somehow managed to endure it, and to focus on other, more practical things. Now, if I can't sleep, I think about how to build raised beds in our garden, or what can be learned from this year's tomato blight and corn smut, and such.

Perhaps this has to do with almost all major philosophers being life-long bachelors?

I wanted to ask: why is this question given such low priority? — Count Timothy von Icarus

A philosophically inclined person is more likely to be disenchanted with the ways of the world.

What a romantic!

1. Karma and rebirth are supposedly based on cause & effect. If true, there's a mountain of causes that, at death, would logically result in rebirth that is practically indistinguishable from the previous life. Yet the story goes that if you do a lot of dirty deeds in your life you will be reborn as a dirty cockroach or something. That doesn't make sense if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. It would be like I'm a human being one instant and the next instant I spontaneously turn into a dirty cockroach, just because I stole a loaf of bread or whatever. I should be reborn the same human bread stealing dirty deed doer that I was the instant before death, if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. — praxis

In Theravada and Early Buddhism kamma is intention. Generally, only intentional actions have kammic consequences. This is why two people, externally acting the same way, could face very different kammic consequences if their intentions for doing the actions differ, respectively.

What you describe looks like Jainism, like I already said.

My question basically has to do with narrative. Buddhists claim that karma & rebirth act according to cause & effect despite being unable to provide a narrative that shows this structure in their narratives. — praxis

I think this has sometimes more to do with an unwillingness to engage in time-consuming explanations to people who seem hostile rather than anything else.

And the attitude you've been displaying here certainly doesn't suggest that you're interested in learning about the Buddhist concepts of kamma and rebirth. So why bother?

You should also know that in Buddhism, at least for monks, there are restrictions as to whom they can or should speak about Dhamma and to whom they shouldn't. Lay Buddhist people may also adopt those restrictions.
If you find that the Buddhists you're talking to don't seem all that open or willing to discuss things with you, then consider the possibility that you have ticked one or more boxes on that list of restriction criteria. (In my opinion, you have.) You can hardly blame people for setting boundaries on whom they spend their time on.
If they seem evasive to you, bear in mind that from their perspective, you're evasive too.

Anything goes — Sirius

And yet circles aren't squares.

If you have time on your hands, then maybe look at the work of Matthew Ratcliffe
https://york.academia.edu/MatthewRatcliffe

And being a huge fan of Schopenhauer's estimation of things — schopenhauer1

A huge fan of his trust-fund lifestyle. It's easy to be pessimistic when one doesn't have to work to pay one's bills!

It sounds like you’re seeing philosophers as advocating a way of life and then falling short of this ideal in their own life. — Joshs

This is what it looks like, yes. But I make no claim about their intentions in this discrepancy; in fact, their intentions in this discrepancy is what I want to understand to begin with.

But I would argue the central task of a philosophy is like that of a scientific theory, to present a model of the way things are.

A model of the way things are -- for whom?

It would hardly be a first that someone presents a model of the way things are -- but which _other_ people, or _only some categories of people_ are supposed to believe.

If a philosopher seems to fall short of what their philosophy argues for, I suggest it is not because they are hypocrites or have somehow forgotten what they have written, but reflects the limitations of their philosophy.

I find this too hard to believe. I don't think it is possible to write a philosophical text, publish it (leaving aside for the moment the shenanigans surrounding the publication of some texts), without the author being aware that there are some, perhaps serious problems with what he has just presented.

What? Does Trump(ism) not capture perfectly the essence of the American spirit, or at least the spirit of those Americans who actually vote or otherwise have the say?

Karl Rahner proposed the (rather scandalous) idea of the ‘anonymous Christian’: — Wayfarer

A perfect combination of pity and contempt!

The whole of Christian existentialism is about you and God alone. The other persons religious beliefs, if any at all, shouldn't matter. — Dermot Griffin

And yet all that anyone has ever heard about the topic "God", one has heard from other people.

Even those people who have epileptic seizures and interpret the visions they have in those seizures as "God is speaking to me" are still working with whatever they have about the topic "God" from other people.

Even Kierkegaard was working only with what he heard other people say on the topic "God".

Why "a year"? It's quite evident everyday, all day, even on this thread. You believe Bank/Tax Fraudster & Criminal Defendent-1 has a snowball's chance in hell to be reelected, baker? Yeah, I guess innumerates follow "the polls" they like. — 180 Proof

Actual elections are not always in line with the previous polls. Surprises have been known to happen.

I suppose you just have more faith in the American people than I do.

You're doing the exact same thing the Trumpistas & co. are doing: blame others, place the entire burden for the quality of the interaction on the other person.

And you are the boss, you define all the terms, right.
— baker

Did I say I am the boss and define all the terms? Or even anything close to that?

But if that's your indirect way of saying it is not meant as an insult, ok. — Tom Storm

If I want to insult someone, I make that clear.

Did I say I am the boss and define all the terms? Or even anything close to that?

Of course, via the language you use. I have brought this up with you at least once before (as well as with some other posters). And I wouldn't bring it up, if this weren't a philosophy forum, and if you wouldn't work in some counselor capacity. I presume you had to be professionally trained in different styles of communication, and so you should know what I'm talking about.

This posted here from another thread:

I don't think you could blame the monks who ended up beaten to death in fights over nominalism versus realism of being guilty of affectation. Even less the people who were tortured to death over questions surrounding transubstantiation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Perhaps this is why people nowadays can get away with affectation -- because there is no you-shall-burn-at-the-stake-for-heresy attached.