The Necessity of Moral Realism (Moral Objectivism)

[Dachshund]

Eduk,

In answer to your query, a moral truth "looks" like tis... It is a moral proposition that is an absolute ( non-contingent, necessary) and universally valid statement of fact. The statement, "It is wrong for human beings to intentionally inflict material suffering on an animal for amusement, recreation or in the name of "sport"" is, for instance, a legitimate example of a an objective moral truth. If you disagree, you are mistaken.

Regards

Dachshund

[Eduk]

I think your reply is a demonstration that you aren't a conscious agent, in which case you could deliberately harm an animal without moral judgement.

[Burning ghost]

I am, at the moment only interested in knowing whether or not you would agree that it is TRUE that the infliction of suffering on animals for amusement, recreation or in the name of sport ( e.g. "blood sports" like fox hunting) is morally wrong.

Yes or No ?

If you say "Yes", I am pointing out that you are necessarily a moral realist ( moral objectivist). (NB: Many members of this form are staunch moral relativists or moral skeptics; IMO, however, these are false ethical theories).

Regards

Dachshund

Under normal circmustances it is true. Under extreme - hopefully mostly hypothetical - circumstances it is not true. If there is an imaginable exception to the statement not given in the OP then it is false. If you value the life of humans more than animals then given the option of torturing an animal for at least 5 minutes or having 10,000 children repeatedly raped for a year I would say it is my moral obligation, from my perspective, to torture the animal for 5 mins - I’d even torture it for an extra 5, 10 or 15 mins just to be sure there was no possibility of questioning whether I’d reached the 5 minute limit.

What I cannot deny is I have a sense of what is “right” and “wrong” and because of this I necessarily question any objective claim to what is “right” or “wrong” in complex circumstances. Even then I act and speak out according to what I believe is “best” even when I know I could be causing more harm then necessary (which I likley am - such is life.)

Confusing “wrong” and “right” with “true” and “false” is very easy done. We certainly act as if some moral choices are undenibly “right” or “wrong.” Our empathic nature keeps us in check and our rational capacity allows us to question our true intentions and willingly explore the grey areas of some previously held moral assumptions.

[Dachshund]

How exactly does my reply demonstrate that I am not a conscious agent. Such a claim is frankly bizarre, it is, self evidently, nothing less that patently absurd, ludicrous and irrational nonsense.

On what planet do you live, Eduk?

[Eduk]

Daschund if you disagree, you are wrong.

[Burning ghost]

I think there are moral truths out there waiting for us to approach them.

I almost entirely agree with your post Chewy, except the above quote.
What would a moral truth look like and how could you test for one? Can you give examples of anything closer to or further away from a moral truth, and how do you prove this?
Not trying to have an argument by the way, just interested in what you have to say.

I can.

(1) Murdering a stranger and taking their possession is worse than (2) Stealing food to feed a starving child.

Now is one closer to a moral truth than the other even though it’s generally deemed “worse?” Absolutely not, but if one act can be seen as worse than another then it is also possible for a nuanced scenario to throw up easier answers than others.

For example:

(A) It is morally wrong to kill people.

(B) It is morally wrong to lie.

The weight of these is dependant upon the circmustances. Killing can be justified under some circumstances (self-defense for example) whilst lying too can be justified if the intent is to protect and/or teach someone something, as part of a game or as a means of theatre. Also, killing someone doesn’t teach them much!

So I say that (A) is more morally objective than (B). You may disagree and if you do I’d love to hear why.

[Eduk]

I don't agree that that is objective BG. It requires personal feelings. For example a rock cannot distinguish between murder and a stubbed toe.

[Burning ghost]

I don't agree that that is objective BG. It requires personal feelings. For example a rock cannot distinguish between murder and a stubbed toe.

If we’re talking about morality “feelings” are a given? I think we’ve got a confusion of terms here.

I am not saying we have a universal measure of morality. I am saying that we apply moral weight to some things more than others. The “feelings” of rocks don’t fall into the moral category. What does a rock have to do with what I just said?

I was referring especially to this part:

Can you give examples of anything closer to or further away from a moral truth, and how do you prove this?

Sorry, I forgot to highlight it

People are not happy about suffering (some enjoy pain but that is different.) That is a true statement. How we go about avoiding personal suffering is another thing all together. We make bargains with ourselves to accept some degree of suffering if the long term pay-off is deemed as a net boon. The objective goal of the morally inclined person is to suffer as little as possible and reap what pleases them as best as they can.

We believe in “right” and “wrong” because it helps us cope with, and actually avoid, needless suffering. Those that don’t fall into a self-destructive spiral and tend to suck anyone in their immediate surroundings into their own personal little nihiistic hell (partly or otherwise.)

[Eduk]

If we’re talking about morality “feelings” are a given? I think we’ve got a confusion of terms here.

Yes I agree feelings are a given. I was seeing the term 'moral truth' as something which would be required to be objectively true. Or is there a definition of moral truth which is purely subjective?

[Fooloso4]

Dachshund,

If we are in agreement that it is wrong for human beings to intentionally inflict material suffering on an animal for amusement, recreation or in the name of sport, then what is the necessity of moral realism?

It is clear that our agreement is not universally held. Your claim is that if anyone does not agree then they are wrong. But this does not demonstrate the necessity of moral realism. It is, rather, your moral judgment, one you think everyone should hold.

You claim it is self-evident but it is evident that it is not, otherwise there would be the kind of universal agreement you claim exists but does not in fact exist.

The term ‘self evident’ is thrown around but what does it mean? Descartes’ existence was self-evident because logically it could not be true that he did not exist. The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But you have declared that all men are not created equal. What is a self-evident truth if it is not self-evident? Note that the claim is not simply that these are self-evident truths but that they hold them to be self-evident, that is, they need no further evidence or explanation to be convinced of their truth. They were well aware that not everyone held these to be self-evident truths.

An affirmation is not a demonstration of necessity. There is nothing logically necessary about the claim that we should not cause animals to suffer for our amusement. Unlike the self-evidence of Descartes’ claim, there is nothing contradictory in holding that it is okay to cause animals to suffer for our amusement.

According to my reading of the relevant moral philosophy, if any ethical claim of the form, "X is right", or, "Y is wrong" is true, then morality is objective and moral realism is a correct thesis.

A moral relativist can consistently hold that it is true that X is right and Y is wrong without committing to an objective morality or moral realism. It is not a claim about what is true independent of human judgment, it is the conclusion of a human judgment. Human judgment is not infallible, or invariant, or necessarily true, it is socially and historically shaped. If you lived in the not too distant past you might have thought there was nothing wrong with treating animals this way, and if you lived in the not too distant future you might think it morally reprehensible to eat animals or make shoes and furniture from them. What would remain the same, however, is your absolute certainty in the truth of whatever it is you believe.

[Steve3007]

I would agree with you that INTENTIONAL infliction of harm for sport is wrong.

Are you sure this is what you mean? Or do you really mean that it is wrong to make the infliction of harm itself the object of the exercise?

If the above quoted sentence really is what you mean, then presumably you regard all forms of hunting, angling and shooting to be morally wrong? After all, in such sports the harm caused to the animals is not collateral damage. It is not accidental. It is intentional. But it is still not (necessarily) the object of the exercise. The object of the exercise is the thrill of the chase.

Similarly, if I eat a (nutritionally unnecessary) beefburger or decide to unnecessarily wear leather shoes, the animals killed for their meat and hides in those examples are not killed accidentally. The infliction of harm on them is intentional. But causing them harm is not the object of the exercise. The object of the exercise is the pleasant taste of meat or the comforts of leather shoes.

So if you really do believe that any intentional infliction of harm is wrong, then you must surely be a vegetarian?

Alternatively, as I've suggested, what you might actually be objecting to is specifically sadism - taking pleasure not in the pleasant products that result in deliberately inflicting harm on some of our fellow animals but in the harm itself.

[Steve3007]

Eduk,

In answer to your query, a moral truth "looks" like tis... It is a moral proposition that is an absolute ( non-contingent, necessary) and universally valid statement of fact. The statement, "It is wrong for human beings to intentionally inflict material suffering on an animal for amusement, recreation or in the name of "sport"" is, for instance, a legitimate example of a an objective moral truth. If you disagree, you are mistaken.

If you think moral statements like your example here are non-contingent and necessary, then you presumably don't place them in the same category as empirical statements, such as "it is raining outside". You presumably see them as true by definition, such as "1 + 1 = 2" or "all mortals will eventually die".

This is presumably why you assert that Eduk is mistaken if he denies the truth of the statement "It is wrong for human beings to intentionally inflict material suffering on an animal for amusement, recreation or in the name of 'sport'". You presumably regard him as mistaken for the same reason as you would regard him as mistaken if he said "there is such a thing as a mortal who will live forever" or "1 + 1 = 3". i.e. you don't feel that you need to provide empirical evidence, because you wouldn't regard that as appropriate, since empirical evidence applies only to contingent truths. You just point to the definitions of the words he's using.

Yes?

Do you consider it to be a non-contingent necessary truth that the intentional infliction of suffering on other animals is morally wrong, even if the infliction of the suffering is not the point of the exercise? What if the person inflicting the suffering does so because he/she takes pleasure in some other product that arises as a result of the infliction of that suffering? Suppose it results in an exciting chase or a tasty burger. In that case, the person involved is not inflicting suffering because they enjoy inflicting suffering. They are doing so because they place the upside of their enjoyment of exciting chases or tasty burgers above the downside of the suffering of the animal.

What do you think of that scenario? Is it morally wrong for a person to value their own enjoyment above the suffering of other animals in this way?

[chewybrian]

I would agree with you that INTENTIONAL infliction of harm for sport is wrong.

Are you sure this is what you mean? Or do you really mean that it is wrong to make the infliction of harm itself the object of the exercise?

Yes. But I also said that what I find to be wrong should not have much effect on what I want to be illegal.

If I want to keep my rights to go to the horse races, go fishing, or keep a dog as a pet (see: PETA), then I need to respect others' rights to hunt, fish, do rodeo events and such. There is a limit where we should outlaw some activities in my opinion, like dog fighting, and that is actually a pretty good standard to start drawing the line. Is the activity essentially about inflicting harm, or is the harm accidental, or necessary to use the animal for food? Say you are jumping your horse over obstacles. You are putting the horse and yourself at risk in the process, but it is not the objective to injure the horse.

[chewybrian]

I think there are moral truths out there waiting for us to approach them.

I almost entirely agree with your post Chewy, except the above quote.
What would a moral truth look like and how could you test for one? Can you give examples of anything closer to or further away from a moral truth, and how do you prove this?
Not trying to have an argument by the way, just interested in what you have to say.

It is stoicism 101. Socrates said we only act immorally out of ignorance. This is not something you can work out in a proof, but it does make sense when you think about it. Stoics also believe that virtue is its own reward. If you accept this, then you might agree with Socrates and find no conflict between what you want and what is right, unless you are uninformed about all the possible consequences of your actions. In theory, if you had full knowledge, then you would naturally do the right thing all the time.

An anecdotal example might be cheating on a test in school. You could gain a short term advantage in a better grade, or even get a degree out of it. But, if you could have instead learned the information to pass the test, then you could have benefited from the knowledge. Perhaps you really only cheated yourself, as they say.

The stoics were also not at all big on imposing their own vision of morality onto others. They preferred instead to show their morality by example and hope others would see the benefit and adopt virtue on their own. There really isn't much percentage in trying to preach to others, eh?

It is possible to believe that there is moral truth, and that some ideas are closer or further away from it, yet to understand that we don't know for sure when we have found it. Everyone should be working toward it as best they are able, and we would make progress individually and collectively if we did. I can only give opinions, but how about:

Steal anything you want any way you can.
Don't hurt people as you steal their property.
Don't steal others' property.
Don't covet others' property.
Don't attach value to property.

BTW, the stoic ideal really was to attach no value to anything external to the will, which would include property (yours or others'). If you make good progress, then all incentive to rob someone would evaporate, as your virtue would have more value to you than anything you could steal. They would use property if they could do so without compromising their principles, but be ready to lose it as needed without emotional attachment. I know it sounds a little 'eastern', zen, whatever, but if you unlock your brain a bit, it does make some sense.

If you refuse to find value in anything that does not come in a proof or a formula, you are missing out, IMO. Of course, I am not talking about accepting some shaky religious principles, but rather the idea that you can choose, and that it is important how you choose, and that you will be happier if you try to do the right thing as you choose. The right thing is out there for you to try to find for yourself, but not for others.

[Eduk]

As I said to BG perhaps it is my own definition of moral truth which I am stumbling over? I saw moral truth as being akin to saying that something weighs 100kg (this is true whether I believe it or not and whether I exist or not) not akin to saying that 100kg is heavy (which may or may not be true depending on context and is necessary for me to provide context).
I can see objectivity in saying X will make someone happier (or less happy). This is testable (though sometimes very very difficult to test). But I can't prove that being happy is good (objectively).

If you refuse to find value in anything that does not come in a proof or a formula, you are missing out, IMO.

This doesn't follow from anything I've said. Believing morals to be subjective doesn't mean I don't value them. Asking you a question is not the same thing as disagreeing with out. Sometimes I just want to dig a little deeper even if I agree with you 99%. Sometimes I don't know if I agree with you or not and am asking for more information so I can decide. Sometimes I do actually disagree and use a question to help someone to see a different point of view. I rarely ask rhetorical questions.