#20,326 in Books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Moral Realism: A Defence
Sentiment score: 2
Reddit mentions: 2
We found 2 Reddit mentions of Moral Realism: A Defence. Here are the top ones.
Buying options
View on Amazon.comor
Specs:
Release date | July 2003 |
At least for Anarchists or other left-libertarians it should also be important to actually read up on some basic or even fundamental ethical texts given most political views and arguments are fundamentally rooted in morality (unless you're a orthodox Marxist or Monarchist). I'm sadly not familiar enough with applied ethics to link collections of arguments for specific ethical problems, but it's very important to know what broad system you're using to evaluate what's right or wrong to not contradict yourself.
At least a few very old texts will also be available for free somewhere on the internet like The Anarchist Library.
Some good intro books:
Some foundational texts and contemporary authors of every main view within normative ethics:
>And I have a perfect grasp on epistemological underpinnings of my ethics.
Then give me the criterion for what "evidence" you would accept.
>The reason I say "I don't know" is because I don't know what you think is the basis for objective morality.
Well, there are arguments for moral realism on its own basis without reference to God or anything else. For a great start I would point you this (which is on my shelf): https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Realism-Defence-Russ-Shafer-Landau-ebook/dp/B002BWPIJS?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-d-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B002BWPIJS
Moral truths are categorically the same as epistemological truths. If you want to dismiss moral realism then you also have to dismiss the idea that there can be such things as informal logical fallacies.
>I can't say what it would take to agree with you because I don't know what the underlining claim is.
The claim is that moral realism is true. Your evidentiary standard now?
>My view on actions is based expressly in how they manifest in the natural world. As such my opinions are not arbitrary but based on physical evidence and realities.
The importance you assign to "physical evidence and realities" is still subjective and arbitrary- meaning that your standard is ultimately arbitrary.