I came across this on a philosophy discussion board, where someone asked for evidence, any evidence at all, for moral realism and I think it’s very telling that there was none.
One person posted three arguments though and I thought it would be fun to evaluate them to see if they’re coherent. I wouldn’t be holding my breath. Continue reading Three More Failed Attempts at Moral Realism
Let’s knock this out with a bang. This time we’re going to look at the section regarding “Semantics” on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for moral realism. I can’t say that I have high hopes that they’ll manage to turn it all around, but I’m willing to give them the chance.
So, will they ever actually try to defend moral realism or will they just continue to whine about how mean the moral anti-realists are? Let’s find out. Continue reading Evaluating Moral Realism Part 5
Part 4 brings us to the section in the article on moral realism on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy labeled “Epistemology”. Hopefully this is better than what we’ve seen so far but I’m not going to be holding my breath.
So let’s jump right into it, shall we? Continue reading Evaluating Moral Realism Part 4
Today, we get on to part 3 of the entry on moral realism, found on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy site and I very much hope that they can do better this time out than they have in the past.
The problem, for those who have been reading along, is that the entire “argument” for moral realism has been pointing out all of its detractors and then whining about it because it doesn’t make advocates happy.
Screw your happiness! Produce evidence that you’re right! So here we go again. I don’t know that it can get any worse. Continue reading Evaluating Moral Realism Part 3
Next, we move on to part two of this article on moral realism, provided on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website. This one is on metaphysics and I hope it isn’t as defensive as the last one. Will they provide any actual evidence for their position? I don’t know.
Let’s go find out. Continue reading Evaluating Moral Realism Part 2
Today, we’re going to take a look at section 1 of the article on Moral Realism, posted over at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This time out, we’re evaluating a section that they call “Moral Disagreement.” Will it make any sense? Only time will tell.
Get comfortable and we’ll dive right in. Continue reading Evaluating Moral Realism Part 1
I’ve been doing a lot of reading on moral realism of late, for obvious reasons, and I’m still not remotely convinced that it holds any water. Therefore, I wanted to grab something from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and at least start to talk about the article in passing. It just doesn’t demonstrate anything objectively real.
This time, we’ll just go over the introduction, otherwise this is going to be a very, very long post. I’ll come back and look at the rest as time allows, working one section at a time. Continue reading Evaluating Moral Realism Part 0
I saw a video recently on Cities: Skylines and yes, I do play that game from time to time. It’s a city simulator, like Sim City, only better IMO, but I see a ton of players who desperately want it to be different. They don’t want it to simulate reality, they want it to simulate the liberal wonderland in their heads.
But it doesn’t actually work that way. So let’s talk about it. Continue reading Life Isn’t Like Video Games
I was listening to a couple of videos and the idea of morality came up. To their credit, they admitted that morality is entirely subjective, but they said that, if you start off with the idea that well-being is your goal, then you can make objective decisions from that point forward.
Except that’s absolutely not true. Continue reading Well-being Isn’t Enough
So I was watching some videos today and I found one where they claimed that the logical absolutes were absolute as a bald assertion.
I entirely disagree. The logical absolutes exist because we’ve never had a single observation where they didn’t hold true. In fact, we can’t even imagine a situation where A isn’t A. We don’t even know what that might look like.
Therefore, the laws of logic, like everything else in rational human thought, they aren’t absolute but they certainly hold up based on every single observation that we’ve ever made. And there are a lot of people who just don’t like that. Continue reading Logic isn’t an Assumption