Fallaneze

A proposition is either true or not true. "Unicorns exist" is either true or not true. 

Moral realism is the view that some moral statements (like "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong") are factually true.

We can determine the morality of behaviors rationally. We don't need to reference a tangible, empirical object.

Intuition provides us with prima facie evidence. Raping infants seems truly evil, so unless and until you have evidence to show that our intuition is providing us with false information, we should accept the way it seems. 

Correct, in order for a moral statement to be factually true there must be an existing moral standard. The caveat is that our awareness of that standard isn't required in order to decipher moral from immoral behavior. That comes naturally and intuitively on some things.

"Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things. Bloom answered questions recently from Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook. "

Either moral realism or moral non-realism is true by law of excluded middle.

"Consensus morality" does not address whether moral statements are true based on fact or opinion. You can have consensus on facts and that's why there's often consensus in the first place. 

Either moral realism or moral non-realism is true so all we need to do is determine which position is more rational than the other. Moral realism is the view that moral statements can be factually true and moral non-realism is the view that they cannot be. If moral non-realism were true, then none of these statements could be factually true:

Based on aggregate trends in human behavior, throughout human history, none of these statements are indicated to be opinion-based truths. No justice system on earth, for instance, adheres to the principle punishing innocent people is morally good. Yet, moral non-realists would have you believe that this absurd conclusion, if it were accepted as true by someone, is just as rationally warranted as the opposite - that punishing innocent people is morally wrong.

So in short, the weight of the evidence (rationally, empirically, and prima facie intuition) strongly favors moral realism. In addition, moral realism is the prevailing view amongst academia and the public so in order to override the status quo, you must prevent a strong case to overcome that as well as all of the evidence in favor of realism. Until then, realism is the more rational position.

It's a principle. We needn't get into the specifics of what constitutes an offense in order for it to be factually true.

Having nothing tangible to compare something to does not mean that the truth of the matter is subjective. All we need to do is determine whether a moral statement like "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is better explained as neither true nor untrue, an opinion-based truth, or a fact-based truth. 

"Chocolate is better than vanilla" is different than "I like chocolate better than vanilla." Moral statements don't refer to the attitude of the person making the moral judgements, they refer to the truth content of the statement. The statement, if true, is either a fact or an opinion. 

By determining whether they committed an offense or not. Even if offenses are subjectively determined, the statement itself can still be factually true. 

The thing in question is the proposition. 

That is beyond the scope of moral realism. If moral statements are factually true, moral realism is affirmed. Thus, if "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is factually true, moral realism is affirmed.

I'm actually more interested in moral realism versus moral non-realism. The only thing that matters is which one is more rational to believe.

Inflicting a penalty on a person who committed no offense is immoral. 

Innocent means not having committed the offense. Guilty means having committed the offense. 

I can determine good intentions within myself. People can convey their intentions without doing anything and we can still make an assessment of whether those intentions are good. 

I agree that a standard must exist that we're comparing the morality of something to, but I don't agree that we must first be aware of this standard before we can determine whether something is moral or immoral. If you brutally kill a puppy in front of an 8 year old I have no question they would be morally outraged or mortified at your behavior. An 8 year old doesnt need to first go through an academic exercise where they build their moral foundation. It's intuitive. Why can't we know of facts using our intuition? 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that morality requires an action to occur or be conceived for it to apply. Having good intentions or a compassionate disposition can coherently be considered morally good 

 "Chocolate is better than vanilla" is a purported truth but it's opinion-based. I'm interesting in evaluating whether any moral statements are factually true.

We don't need to build a moral framework before we can determine whether actions or principles are moral or immoral. Sometimes we immediately know whether something is moral or immoral through intuition.

Perhaps it's an axiom because it's based on fact?

Or do goggles, computer programming, and electricty comprise the existence of something that isn't real? 

I would say there's a slight difference. If we were describing an optical illusion, the illusion "exists" but isn't real. We could always compare the definitions to see if there are any big differences 

Nope. 

We might say a virtual reality world, seen while wearing goggles or a helmet or whatever, "exists" but isn't real. If it both doesn't exist and isn't real, then how would we be seeing it?

We can rationally identify moral behavior from immoral behavior. Certain situations are more black and white while others are in more of a gray area. Whether our moral conclusions are rational or irrational is not wholly subjective. That, if true, confirms moral realism. Believing that there is no such thing as moral progress, a moral highground, making incorrect moral judgements, etc. contradicts all of the evidence we have, both rationally and empirically. "Punishing an innocent person is morally good" is more irrational than saying "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla." Thus, we can see that moral judgements are not wholly opinion-based.

I don't think that abandoning moral realism for not having an empirical or quantifiable means of validating or invalidating whether certain behaviors are moral or immoral is rationally justified. 

Moral non-realism is rationally justified when it does a better job of explaining the evidence than moral realism does. The evidence is our starting point.

Your moral framework is based on seretonin/dopamine levels, not widely agreed upon or self-evident premises. Under your moral framework, which you seem to have abandoned, murder is *morally* wrong based solely on the levels of seretonin and dopamine levels in the brain. Let's abandon this moral framework altogether, shall we? It's so preposterous at this point.

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another person, not an "unjustified" killing.

Identifying common motives for our behavior doesn't give weight to moral non-realism.

Reality can only be experienced inter-subjectively. "Only as real as our subjective experience" refers to reality itself. 

Math and morality are different but both have an abstract, objective framework that we can rationally discover. This is how humanity has morally progressed over the years.  

My point with the moral philosophers and views of everyday people was to establish that the status quo favors moral realism for setting the default burden of proof. 

Disagreement does not show that there is no fact of the matter. 

"Should or should not" cannot be determined without first having a purpose as to what one should or should not do. Humanity having an inherent purpose as to what they should or should not do is the only way something can be morally wrong independent of our views. 

Everything we perceive is comprised of mental properties that have no independent existence. Shapes, colors, textures, sounds, etc. 

I believe other people are real too, in terms of their inner person or soul or whatever, but I just don't believe that anything perceived has independent existence. The world is a construct of information-processing. It's an assimilation of mental properties that have no independent existence.

You are free to believe that maximizing your wellbeing isn't a rational thing to do. 

A paradox just needs to be seemingly absurd.

Yes we do want to be protected from harm. It can be true that we want to protected from harm and that something like this is also morally wrong. What evidences your claim that "raping infants is morally wrong" is an opinion-based truth in the same sense that "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla" rather than being a fact-based truth like "2 + 2 = 4"? The status quo, at least among moral philosophers, is moral realism by a 2:1 margin. I'm also assuming that most people who don't delve into philosophy too much would say that such a thing is truly evil, which would fall under a moral realist position as well. I mention this because you would need some overriding evidence to show that prevailing prima facie intuitions about it being truly evil are false.

The only way that something could be morally wrong independent of our opinions is if humanity was brought into being for a purpose. Things we should or should not do would be relative to that purpose. 

Everything you see has no independent existence. We're living in a virtual world. 

Seems irrational to say "it doesn't matter" whether there's any moral highground on whether children should or should not be raped, regardless of whether there's punishment for the rapist involved.

I don't know about that. We act on our instincts but instincts don't count as subconscious beliefs. Our instincts may lay the ground work for us to begin a chain of thought from, but a belief is something that you accept to be true. It's a mental process, not a subconscious process. 

It seems true that maximizing your own wellbeing is a rational thing to do. Why wouldn't it be? 

The paradox is that an atheist can be more rational for holding a fictitious belief in God as long as it achieves their desires better than atheism does. 

Heart failure has a logical consequence. So does normal heart activity.

But if a child rapist disagrees, neither of you have the moral highground.

Well each statement seems incorrect. It doesn't seem like there's no fact of the matter on whether it's better to have a heart with clogged arteries or not. Some of this has to do with the architecture of the heart itself. You can infer what role each part has. So I'm finding it interesting how, if God doesn't exist, our internal organs have an imagined purpose and the implications of that

There is no fact of the matter on whether it's better to have a heart with clogged arteries rather than not.

There is simply no fact of the matter on whether it's better to have a brain with Alzheimer's or one without 

Trick question because any basis of comparison involves imagined goals for what a better brain is.

Is it better to have a brain with Alzheimer's or one without?

Axioms are different than definitions. An axiom is something that is widely accepted or self-evidently true. A definition describes the meaning of something. I think you meant to say that stealing, murder, and molestation are wrong by definition. There's a difference between "legally wrong" and "morally wrong." I dont see anywhere where any of these terms are morally wrong by defintion.

You can get rich by selling cars and selling planes. This does not mean that you can only get rich by selling cars and planes.

You can get increased seretonin from being social and empathetic. This does not mean that you can only get increased seretonin levels from being social and empathetic. The claim was that molestation does not increase seretonin levels, which is a claim that hasn't been evidenced. 

Previously you claimed that excessive seretonin levels were morally good. Does this include excessive seretonin levels where you get seretonin syndrome?

It makes more sense when viewed from the paradigm that consciousness arose from matter rather than vice versa. Obviously our moral judgements express nothing tangible so you could say that morality is imagined and that only the things we can physically measure exist and are real. Is still contradicts basic human intuition that there's a moral dimension. If nihilism is true, all of the following statements must also be factually true:

Are you a moral nihilist? 

My views is that statements like "stealing from people is wrong" are true, not based on any emotions associated with it, but that it expresses a true proposition.

The illusion is describing something in terms of "moral wrongness" when in reality we're describing it in terms of something else.

Just because social cohesion and empathy increases production of seretonin in our brain does not mean that we can only increase production of seretonin through social cohesion and empathy. You made the claim that someone who is molesting young children would not generate seretonin by doing so which is a claim awaiting evidence.

Seretonin and dopamine levels determine whether someone behaves morally or immorally. Scrap the word abuse or molestation if you want to, let's just say that someone is touching or doing something to a young child or infant in a sexual way for their own sexual pleasure. Your only defense is to hope that the accuser doesn't get an increase in seretonin levels. As long as the person doing the touching doesn't get "excessive" dopamine levels from it, they're doing nothing morally wrong. You've already confirmed that sex isn't evil, so climax is still below the threshold of "excessive" dopamine.

Okay, so how our brain feels in reaction to certain situations determines whether we judge that situation to be morally good or morally wrong. There is nothing about morality that is actually being described except the feel-good or feel-bad chemistry in our brain when we say that something is morally good or morally wrong. 

Our brains have natural levels of seretonin. How did you come to the conclusion that a molester, who enjoys molesting children, "does not generate seretonin" by doing this?

A self-evident truth, like an axiom, has no effect on the framework you've put forth to determine moral or immoral behavior. All that matters, under your framework, are seretonin and dopamine levels.

No, I'm referring to an infant or young child. Sexual abuse has many forms and not all of them are physically harmful.

If "morally good" is defined in terms of having certain brain chemicals that make you feel good, then my point was that if someone were to sexually abuse young children, provided the young child had had no negative brain chemicals and the abuser had positive brain chemicals resulting from it, this would BE morally good under this framework.