Objective Morals (aka Moral Realism)

Background

A friend and I were discussing objective morals. I thought all his claims and ideas were wrong. Of course, I liked my ideas. That lead me to look into the topic more. I looked up the leading logical arguments for moral realism, and I didn't find them very compelling compared to the arguments against moral realism.

Introduction

This is going to be a brainstorming post. I want to explain my ideas, thinking, and ask questions to guide the next phase of my inquiry.

My Biases

I don't believe in any creator, god, or religion. So the arguments built on a creator or attributes of a god are rejected because I reject the existence of those ideas. With that said, moral realism is not contingent on deism.

Evolution is one of the strongest theories in biology, if not all of science.

I believe in objective reality. Physical structures are undeniable. Ideologies and other abstract ideas are very much open for debate.

Epistemology wise, I'm a skeptic who leans heavily on 1) empiricism for knowledge that can be measured and 2) rationalism for knowledge that cannot be measured.

Logic is the best system of thinking.

The scientific method is the best system for understanding processes.

Questions (and how do we know?)

Are all, most, some, or few behaviors moral truths?

How many people have to agree for something to be a moral truth?

If people cannot agree, how do people decide what the moral truths are?

If there are moral truths, how can people know what they are? 

How do non human animals fit into the discussion?

How do psychopaths and or other sociopaths fit into the discussion?

How does the history of slavery and the abolishment of slavery prove/disprove moral realism?

How do laws prove/disprove moral realism?

If something like, do not murder, is a moral truth, how do we explain why people murder?

Even if everyone agrees murder is morally wrong, how do we know that's an objective truth and not culture?

For deist, what does it mean when a religion's god commands someone to break a moral truth?

If x is claimed to be a moral truth, does one situation where x is moral disprove x as a moral truth? 

My Priors

People do not agree.

The disagreement seems undeniable. I know that disagreement doesn't necessarily rule out moral realism, but it makes it obvious to me that people aren't going to agree. If we cannot agree, then how can we know which, if any, moral truths are true?

Let's look at killing.

A jainist might say killing a tree or plant is morally wrong. The US legal system might say killing is allowed in self defense. An army might say killing is allowed to protect and or conquer an area. Most people eat meat, so they think it is moral to kill animals for food. Hunters might hunt for sport. Many vegans stop eating meat because they decide it's morally wrong that animals have to suffer in factory farming conditions. And the list goes on. People have varying morals about killing. Maybe a moral realist would agree that killing isn't one of the moral truths.

It feels like I only need to find one black swan. Maybe this is a logical fallacy. But if a moral realist says x is a moral truth, I should only have to find one situation where x is moral.

What's Next?

Here are my next two stops. I'll add further resources as I find them. 

Moral Anti-Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Moral Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 

“The Legendary Muhammad Ali”

She watched her eldest son, Muhammad Ali, sharpen his knife. The woman knew Ali would avenge his father’s murder. Ali and his brother received news of their rival’s location. Ali sheathed his knife in the sash of his robe.

As her sons were leaving their home, the woman said, “Keep an eye out and a knife sharp.”

“Of course, yamma,” Ali said.

The woman tore papyrus leaves, like limbs from a body, from the old books next to her oven.

The day before, Ali had found the books in a six-foot jar while digging for fertilizer. Ali hesitated to break the jar because he feared an evil spirit might be inside. When he considered there could be gold inside, he smashed the jar to pieces with his mallet. Instead, the jar contained 13 papyrus-bound books. He took them home and placed them next to his mother’s oven.

The woman continued to tear, crinkle, and burn the leaves as kindling. The leaves smoldered. The edges curled inward as they turned from brown to gray to white. She added more leaves until a flame ignited. The words, written in Coptic, an ancient Egyptian language using the Greek alphabet, became smoke, disappearing for the final time. Neither the woman nor her sons knew the monetary, historical, or spiritual value of the words being burned.

The sons returned. Their robes and beards were stained. Ali was excited to tell his mother the good news. “Yamma,” Ali said, “I chopped his limbs off and dug out his heart. We all ate it.”

She was proud of her sons. She said, “My sons, have some bread while it is fresh. I will heat water for you to wash.”

The woman tore more leaves to start another fire.

Ali said, “We have to get rid of these old books. The authorities will search the house.”

The next day, the books were taken to a local Coptic priest. Ali was arrested. The priest's brother, a schoolteacher, saw one of the books and recognized its value. The teacher took the book to Cairo and showed it to a physician interested in Coptic. The doctor alerted the Department of Antiquities (DoA). The DoA seized the book from the teacher.

The rest of the books were taken to Cairo and sold to antiquity dealers. The sales and rumors of the books increased investigations from authorities. The DoA bought one of the books and confiscated another ten. The DoA gave the books they obtained to the Coptic Museum in Cairo. The thirteenth book escaped Egypt through a Belgian antiques dealer. The Belgian tried to sell the remaining book in New York, eventually selling the remaining book to the Jung Institute of Zurich. Today, all the surviving books and fragments are at the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

What were these ancient Coptic books discovered by the heart-eating murdering Muhammad Ali? They were mostly Gnostic texts with a few other philosophical works, including an excerpt from Plato’s Republic. The majority of the texts had been lost for close to 1,500 years. Today, anyone can read all of these texts online for the price of their internet connection.