How does this explain things happening people profoundly dislike, if it's just thought? — mcc1789

By virtue of the fact that we must engage with reality solely through the medium of thought. THERE IS NO OTHER MEANS.

"just thought?"

THOUGHT is everything and everything is thought. That is not to say that there are not things... there may well be, but we have only one witness to existent reality (if there is such a thing) and that witness has yet to be thoroughly cross examined.

M

Moral Realism can only work in the presence of a moral authority, one that can decide between apparently intellectually valid moral proposals. In this world of human 'demi-gods' logic, reason, reality and morals are almost always privately applied and bow to the Gods of private motive and human instinct.

The 'belief' in a God, is a somewhat primitive assertion of the universal human aspiration towards Moral Realism. God is indeed quite dead but the aspiration towards Moral Realism lives, it is the ultimate but as yet illusive hope of all Moral Philosophy.

If our species survives the present self imposed ecological threat to its continued existence, Moral Realism will be its salvation.

Trump is a potent example of the present evolution of 'white' moral realism. In my estimation it will take too much time to evolve into a functional salvation, yet the aspiration remains as beautiful and as unreal as the God-concept.

M

The word objective is ambiguous. It can mean "bright line rules", things most people in a given society understand such as speed limits, it can also mean "independent of humans". — InternetStranger

You forgot the meaning of "objective" which unites both of these two distinct meanings, and that is "the objective", in the sense of a goal, or aim. The objective, in the sense of a goal, is what we agree upon, to work together toward. This is what inspires us to accept the rules, the thought of working together toward objectives. And, being common to many, the objective's real existence will be independent from each of us, therefore "independent from humans".

OED gives: "A Traveller is not to imagine pleasure his object." 1665

It's a confused meaning, in connection to this subject matter, since what it says is someone makes the object of their senses, e.g., gold, into their object. Their thang, as it were. The thing they are about, e.g., a man greedy for pelf or gain makes money his goal. His[/i] object. This is somehow not what telos or even 'final cause' in Scholastic usage means. Aquinas may have played a role in bringing this into the language. Phusei dikaion, natural justice, refers to a way of being, not a getting of something. A just man lives according to Dike or justice. He doesn't seek it as an objective.

More starkly: A courageous man is courageous, he doesn't seek the ends of courage as a goal or as his object. Courage is not his objective, but what he is according to nature.

So far as one does not trace back through the "second cave", that of historical usage, one becomes a sophist arguing about title cards and signaling fealty to slogans. The whole of the contemporary philosophic professoriate are sophistic puzzle solvers in this sense.

"Moral realist facts" are not isolable entities like empirical facts, but general facts about human nature. They are not strictly empirically verifiable by means of repetitions of controlled experiment and observation, but are phenomenologically corroborable by attentive, intelligent and reasonable intersubjective understanding of our common human condition.

I think Anscombe is just plain wrong if she thinks that Aristotle does not think that we "ought' to live virtuously because virtuous living is the way to actualization of human potential, to eudamonia.

What sort of fact would a moral realist fact be? Is it like a physical fact that can be empirically measured? Is it like a mathematical or logical fact that can be derived from some formal system of axioms and rules of inference? — Michael

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. — David Hume

Couldn't help notice the similarity :-)

OED gives: "A Traveller is not to imagine pleasure his object." 1665 — InternetStranger

That's odd, my OED says "something sought or aimed at; an objective point"

This is somehow not what telos or even 'final cause' in Scholastic usage means. — InternetStranger

I disagree, I think that's exactly what telos or final cause is. Why do you think it is otherwise?

"Why do you think it is otherwise?"

For the reasons already given. You bore me unutterably. Courage is obviously not an external goal.

That didn't answer the question. I don't think we engage with reality solely by thought. In any case, that does not tell us it's entirely thought. Your claims were to me rather extreme, such as claiming before people believed in heliocentrism, it wasn't true. I see no basis for that.

I think Anscombe is just plain wrong if she thinks that Aristotle does not think that we "ought' to live virtuously because virtuous living is the way to actualization of human potential, to eudamonia. — Janus

That sense of "ought" is akin to what we mean when we say that we ought brush our teeth to keep them healthy. That doesn't seem to be the sense of "ought" that the moral realist intends when he says that we ought not do something because it's wrong.

I think the realism comes into play when the question as to why certain acts are wrong is answered. Saying that we ought not do something simply because it is wrong is no answer at all, much less a realist one.

Perhaps moral realism should be renamed 'ethical realism' since ethics subsumes morality as well as including other practices such as cultivation of wisdom, knowledge, creativity, beauty, health, friendship, love and so on; in short all the things that constitute the good life.

Courage is obviously not an external goal. — InternetStranger

We were talking about the meaning of the word "objective". Why do you bring up "courage" which is a disposition? You haven't shown any relationship between the two, so as far as I can see you are speaking irrelevant nonsense.

Reality, both mine and yours (assuming that you exist) is entirely dependent upon thought. There is no alternative every thing and non thing is a manifesto of thought

"irrelevant nonsense."

Have it your way, you bore me.

Why?

What is it you are asking?

I'm not seeing a justification of your stance, and I wanted one.

please state what you think is my stance and why you think it is "unjustified'?

You said everything is dependent on thought. I'm not seeing why that is. Sure, we do depend upon thought to discern reality. That doesn't mean that there's nothing outside it though.

If you are to offer the proposal that, there is some thing that does in fact exist outside of thought, this entirely impossible 'thing' must present itself to you as a thought construct.

You cannot identify or cogitate an entity or a thing, without the application of the very thing you are trying to negate.

There are no things outside of thought.

You simply beg the question.

I am not "negating" anything.

There are no things outside of thought.

It is not a question, it is a statement. If you disagree then please share your counter argument?

M

Support your argument first. Thus far all that I've seen is you asserting this.

Mine is not an argument it is an observation.

M

You need more to convince others.

It is not my intention to convince anyone ,other than myself. In fact I have yet to thoroughly convince myself of a self. But I'm working on it.

M

All right.

Insofar as human nature is real, insofar as human well-being is real, and insofar as human suffering is real (often in gratuitous forms), then it seems inescapable that moral realism is justified. — Maw

Which means what? Something like, "Whatever enhances my wellbeing and diminishes my suffering is moral (morally good, morally right, just, righteous), even if in the process of this, other people or their property get hurt or damaged" ?

no

I need to learn to respond to people like him in the succinct way you do, instead of wasting my time on long-winded clarifications that fall on willfully deaf ears.