I would say yes, because we have no other way of determining their truth than what people find moral or beautiful. — Marchesk

Shouldn't you look at (or otherwise experience) the thing itself, to find out if it's beautiful, rather than asking or observing whether people find it beautiful?

It's different with empirical or mathematical claims, because we do have means to investigate independent of what one group or another thinks. There are still some people who remain convinced the world is flat, but they're simply wrong. This is easily shown. — Marchesk

Really? What are those methods?

Shouldn't you look at (or otherwise experience) the thing itself, to find out if it's beautiful, rather than asking or observing whether people find it beautiful? — The Great Whatever

So when I find a movie or song to be beautiful and moving, and then other people, perhaps even friends or family, find it to be otherwise, who is right? Am I beholding the movie or song correctly, or are they?

So let's say you have a specific belief - maybe torturing children is wrong - then you find out that it isn't true. Is that a possibility
— shmik
Sure, but I don't think it's likely.
Haven't you ever changed your mind about something? — The Great Whatever

Sorry, did an edit to try to make my point more clear.

Wouldn't a more reasonable response be to say, 'you're right?' — The Great Whatever

I get that anti-realism isn't the norm, but so what? I don't go along with every position that is intuitively compelling if I think it's flawed.

Uh, I don't know. I would have to know what song you were talking about.

Really? What are those methods? — The Great Whatever

Those would be scientific, logical or mathematical methods. They're objective.

But if we have two cultures, where one thinks that torturing kids in some situations is moral, and the other disagrees, then what independent means is their to determine who's right? — Marchesk

Why would the culture's opinions matter? Just because someone has an opinion that p, doesn't mean that p. No?

Uh, I don't know. I would have to know what song you were talking about. — The Great Whatever

So you are the arbitrator of what's beautiful?

Why would the culture's opinions matter? Just because someone has an opinion that p, doesn't mean that p. No? — The Great Whatever

Because there is no other fact of the matter.

Like what? Can you walk me through how they work, and how they differ from non-scientific methods?

So you are the arbitrator of what's beautiful? — Marchesk

No; whether the object is beautiful is. Of course, I can often tell whether an object is beautiful by seeing (etc.) it.

No; whether the object is beautiful is. Of course, I can often tell whether an object is beautiful by seeing (etc.) it. — The Great Whatever

Even though people disagree with you? What makes so sure?

Do you always think you're wrong, or there's no fact of the matter, juyt because someone disagrees with you? People have different opinions, that's perfectly common.

Do all statements of fact require a 'because?' — The Great Whatever

No, but do you think that moral facts are exactly the same as other facts with the only difference being their subject matter?
Normally you could check if someone told you that there was a cat on the mat.

Do you always think you're wrong, or there's no fact of the matter, juyt because someone disagrees with you? People have different opinions, that's perfectly common. — The Great Whatever

Right, and in some cases we have objective means of determining who's right. But this is not so with aesthetics or morality.

What is more objective than looking at something and seeing that it's beautiful? Aren't all methods of inquiry in some sense observational like this?

I think I would need to be given a reason to think they're different.

What is more objective than looking at something and seeing that it's beautiful? Aren't all methods of inquiry in some sense observational like this? — The Great Whatever

No, consider taste:

Me: This fruitcake is the best tasting stuff on Earth. You: fruit cake is disgusting. It should never have been made. It's an abomination to human taste buds.

Turkey Vulture: might as well be a rock. (I have no idea whether turkey vultures have an interest in fruit cake but I'm guessing some animals would be totally disinterested).

What is the truth about whether fruit cake tastes amazing? It's entirely a subjective matter. There is no objective, or real fact of the matter.

I'm just pointing out that that's an odd belief, and I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise. — The Great Whatever

Shouldn't that tell you something? If I claimed that New York was the capital of the US, you could show me how I'm wrong.

I don't know, because I've never tried fruitcake (that I can remember).

But what if he just replied, 'I don't believe this map is accurate?' Or what if he just said 'I don't believe my eyes reveal objects independent of them?'

don't know, because I've never tried fruitcake (that I can remember). — The Great Whatever

The point is that there is no objective truth of the matter about whether fruit cake tastes well. In fact, the taste of fruit cake is entirely a creature and individual matter, for those who can taste fruit cake as anything.

Is there a difference between there being a truth to the matter, and an objective truth to the matter? Claiming there's no truth to the matter would seem to commit one to saying nothing is tasty, which is wrong, since plenty of things are. So you must have something else in mind.

Is there a difference between there being a truth to the matter, and an objective truth to the matter? Claiming there's no truth to the matter would seem to commit one to saying nothing is tasty, which is wrong, since plenty of things are. So you must have something else in mind. — The Great Whatever

Realism - there is no real taste value. Similarly, there are no real moral or aesthetic values. Only subjective or culturally defined ones.

I'm not sure what you mean.

But what if he just replied, 'I don't believe this map is accurate?' — The Great Whatever

Along with all other maps, official documents, governing bodies, etc?

But it's not the best example of realism, because humans somewhat arbitrarily (for historical reasons) determine what cities are the capitols.

Or what if he just said 'I don't believe my eyes reveal objects independent of them?' — The Great Whatever

DC would still be the intersubjective capitol, but for such a person, I'm not going to hold my breath on any realist claims from them.

I'm not sure what you mean. — The Great Whatever

Are we not discussing the case for or against moral realism? I'm confused at your confusion. If morality is no better than beholding a beautiful object for any given individual, then how is it real?

Are we not discussing the case for or against moral realism? I'm confused at your confusion. If morality is no better than beholding a beautiful object for any given individual, then how is it real? — Marchesk

I think an individual can see whether an object is beautiful by beholding it, but that the object is beautiful doesn't mean that their beholding it makes it beautiful. It already was; they just saw that it was.

think an individual can see whether an object is beautiful by beholding it, but that the object is beautiful doesn't mean that their beholding it makes it beautiful. It already was; they just saw that it was. — The Great Whatever

But what's your rationale for this? It just sounds like an arbitrary claim where you have no means of ascertaining the truth of the matter, since other individuals can see the same object as ugly, and there is nothing else to something being beautiful than our perception of it.

I'm guessing that this all stems from your metaphysical radical subjectivism, where there is no objective truth of the matter, so all truth is whatever the individual beholds.

and there is nothing else to something being beautiful than our perception of it. — Marchesk

But that's not true at all. For example, I can say 'I bet/hope that painting is beautiful – so I hope someone gets to see it!' and this makes perfect sense, even knowing no one has seen it. But for this to make sense, it has to have been beautiful independent of anyone's seeing it. In fact, that's why we want to go see it, because it's beautiful.

I think an individual can see whether an object is beautiful by beholding it, but that the object is beautiful doesn't mean that their beholding it makes it beautiful. It already was; they just saw that it was. — The Great Whatever

There do exist sado masochists. One particularly nasty individual in the early 20th century tortured and killed a bunch of kids. He got off on that stuff.

Reason I bring it up is because you have vigorously defended hedonism, and in conjunction with knowing something is beautiful just by perceiving it, how do you account for such individuals? Are they wrong?

But that's not true at all. For example, I can say 'I bet/hope that painting is beautiful – so I hope someone gets to see it!' and this makes perfect sense, even knowing no one has seen it. But for this to make sense, it has to have been beautiful independent of anyone's seeing it. In fact, that's why we want to go see it, because it's beautiful. — The Great Whatever

Or because other human beings have similar aesthetic tastes? How do you get from people having aesthetic experiences to the object being aesthetically pleasing independent (real) of anyone?