Can anyone explain MORAL REALISM in simple terms??
138516
Moral realism is the view in philosophy that there are suitably mind-independent and therefore objective moral facts that are described by moral judgments. This combines a cognitivist view about moral judgments (they are belief-like mental states that describe the state of the world), a view about the existence of moral facts (they do in fact exist), and a view about the nature of moral facts (they are objective: independent of our cognizing them, or our stance towards them, etc.). It contrasts with expressivist or fictionalist theories of moral judgment (e.g., Stevenson, Hare, Blackburn, Gibbard, Kalderon), irrealist denials of the existence of moral facts (e.g., Mackie, Joyce, and the expressivists), and constructivist or relativist theories of the nature of moral facts (e.g., Firth, Rawls, Korsgaard, Harman). Some moral realists include David Brink, John McDowell, Peter Railton, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Michael Smith, and Thomas Nagel.
382403
Strictly speaking, you have decided NOT to embrace the "undecidable" and NOT the "unverifiable".  Unverifieable, inherently implies the potential applicability of the scientific and/or logical verification process, which in turn could be a function of the Uncertainly Principle, time, knowledge, instrumentation, etc.  Whereas the situation at hand is by far much more hopeless than that; the very notion of "verifiability" does NOT even apply in this case.  Yes my friend those ancient desert-dwellers really knew how to screw us all with their creation of an undecidable god that can only be attained through the pure fairytale process of "faith".   And hence started the greatest conspiracy ever plotted against the human race, and which, in its many mutated forms, continues to this very day.   ... As for the pity part - well, how can I pity someone who has a great family, enjoys his life, and has otherwise had the courage to construct his own reality in accords with his moral will?    Besides, we do not much care for twice-removed guests like you DOWN HERE anyway. :-)
599672
No, Morality is personal.  Rules are for everyone.\n\nRules can be set to try and set some kind of moral backing, but it is up to the person whether or not they want to follow the rules.
798827
Is man good? You are knowledgable. I have seen your questions and replies....you seem to have a head on your shoulders. So. Like law regarding entropy, is man born going from good to better, or is man born and molded, pushed, punished, terrorized, into beinf what we call morally acceptable? I, as an opinion, can not believe in an'inherent goodness' in man. I just look at a child who is becoming self aware, and the first things learned are "NO!", screaming for attention, taking toys from others...doing everything we have to teach them not to do. They do not come out and learn politeness and giving, first. They are changed into that.
822732
You make a very valid point.  I'm a Humanist, and I think happiness is extremely important, but a good life is not just one filled with pleasurable indulgences.  It is important to live a moral life, and sometimes we have to do things that aren't fun and don't give us immediate pleasure, but they are the right thing to do in the long run and will help to secure our freedoms and make a better life possible for us, our loved ones, and others.  You call this moral motivation righteousness.  We shy away from that term because of its religious connotations.  Instead we call it living a moral, useful, meaningful, responsible, and fulfilling life.  In short, a good life.
554553
It is said and I quote..."A lasting social government without a morality predicated upon spiritual realities can no more be maintained than the solar system without gravity."  \n\nA functional governement needs a moral basis for society to thrive... and thereby the government will thrive...
1132643
Dear dbish616@sbcglobal.net:\nI like your question. It is a question I have thought about all my life since I was a teenager. I am completing my masters in political science to understand that question better, and try to answer it. Last term we learned that there is the idealistic way of looking at the world and the realistic way. Idealists, like you and I, think about how the world should be, whereas the realists see the world as it is and act accordingly.\nThere's more to this question, but this may be a good start of a thread.\nRegards,\nCarlos
728176
If you just met me, how would you know what I believe in ?? So how could you possibly judge whether, or not I'm immoral ?? Oh, by the way, I'm Agnostic. ~~~
140549
"Moral Equivalence" is a term of the political arena, usually usually used in a negative way.\nIt was widely used during the Cold War and claimed that in a conflict, the two sides of this conflict could not be morally ranked in the sense that one side was better than the other. There also could be no ethical difference in the evaluation of the actions of either side.  This was a popular idea among the European (and I suppose American) Left of the day that somehow held that both parties to the Cold War were morally corrupt and equally evil. \nI have seen some modern day Blogs that seem to imply that the modern-day-actions of the USA in the "War against Terrorism" (however deplorable they may be) are actually as evil as Terrorism itself. \nThis is a perfect example of applying "moral equivalence" to a modern setup
1028539
Why would this majority rule then be correct? As in, who gives you the right over someone else? You'll force them? That doesn't make sense. Beyond this, I'd love to see a transcultural model that actually works. It won't. Because guess what? Are you going to let everyone practice religion? Whatever one they want? Even if it goes against your code? If you don't, this won't work. Also, if you apply certain moral codes, and someone doesn't ascribe to them, so what? What are you gonna do? Punish them for bad morals? If you don't, then what was the purpose in the first place? If you do, then you have become an oppressive society. And before you become one of those you had better be sure you know what you're doing. Another point, because everyone believes it doesn't make it right. What if you wanted to amend it later on to say that killing is OK? Would it then be OK? If you have a universal standard of morality, then it can't change, otherwise what's the point? If it can't change, then majority rule is not the determining factor of universal moral guidelines. So what makes your first majority any more special than the ones to come? This is illogical, impractical and unfeasible at best.
66636
In addition to the idea that there are universal morals (such as killing and stealing), just because morality is relative doesn't mean it doesn't exist.\n\nAttitudes towards sex are a great example of moral relativity.  Even in our own country we've become very accepting of pre-marital sex. This doesn't mean we still don't have a set of morals about sex, it just means they've changed over time.  Morality shifts, but still exists.
590629
Morality as in?\nIf you tell me I can help.
494253
The root of evil, is the tendency to make real what is pure whim.  And to not know the difference.  \n\nEvil only exists in the minds of the individual who groups up with other individuals and sacrifices lives for pure whim and fantasy.  Examples, "It's God's plan", "The greatest good for the greatest number",  "I felt good, thus it must be right".\n\nWe can rationalize anything under these three subjective moral systems.  Supernatural, social, and emotional.
567205
All things being equal, any decision is best made by logic since logical decisions almost always reflect reality. Making decisions by "morals" is just another way of saying "making decisions based on ideology." Some ideological decisions work, but trying to decide everything within the limits that every ideology has will often lead to greater problems. \n\nA good example from my own life is my stance on abortion. I intensely dislike abortion, perhaps because I have 5 children and 8 granchildren. But from a logical and realistic standpoint, there is no other option than to place the decision to have an abortion where it belongs: with those who get pregnant. Forcing a pregnant person to bear to term a baby she doesn't want is, IMHO, just plain stupid. It's an incorrect application of ideology.
620822
Good Afternoon!\n \nMorals are objective, and subjective.  That is, genocide is always wrong.  Rape?  Wrong.  This morally so.  But person's intention has to be taken into account.  Take for existence a man putting a knife into another man's heart, and the second man dies.  Was the first man action morally wrong?  If his intention was to kill or harm the other man, yes, his action is morally wrong.  It is never right to intend harm on another.  But maybe he was surgurn performing emergency surgery on a patient, and the patient died despite the doctor's attempt to keep him alive.  So his action is not wrong, becuase the intention to save a life.\n\nThat is there a many actions that are morally wrong.  When Deciding if the person is cupable fo a wrong act one most consider three things: 1 whether the person knows the act is wrong.  2 whether the person has considered what they are doing and 3 whether or not they choose to do it freely, with out coersion.  \n\nThere are morally wrong and right acts.  If someone steals from you something they do not need, you will know that is wrong, no matter where you are.  But the act must be veiwed with the intention included.  Maybe it was someone who did not the object was yours, and thinking it belonged to some one they knew, would borrow and return it.  However, in this case it is not stealing, and is simply a mistake. \n\nLastly, one can never choose a moral wrong intentionally for the sake of another good.  That is always wrong, no matter what the more distant intention is, becuase the immediate intention is wrong.\n\nPeace be with you.\n\nsorry about typographical errors, I'm in a hurry.
979939
Only one man has understood me,and even he has not  =  even if this one man said/showed that he understood me or agreed with me, he did not really fully understand my motives/hidden thoughts etc. In other words, I am too abstract for you pragmatic simpletons to understand me (but I am trying to say that nicely).\n \nthe real is rational and the rational is real  =  a thing can only be real if it is rational, and it is only rational if it is real. If it is real, then it must be rational and if it is rational, then it surely is real. It means the two are synonims, or they define each-other.
874102
Good exists. Bad is only lack of good. It does'nt exist. Light exists. There is a planet that sends us light. Darkness does'nt exist. There is no planet sending us darkness. It is just the lack of light. One example. To be stingy is considered "bad". But it is just not being generous -which is a moral quality. In order to be generous one has to have a high moral quality. Being stingy is just not having this moral quality.