If moral realism is true* are psychopaths analogous to blind

Assuming so, I would say so.

But that's assuming much.

43.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.

I would say your assumption is true though.

>>1499736
>moral realism
Most retarded thing I have ever heard.

>>1499771
Not this one though.
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

>>1499736
is anything true?

>>1499830
>is anything true?
What is your metric for judging what is 'true' when literally nothing but your own subjective values can be verified?

>>1499736

No, they're more like autistic people. It seems to me like this analogy works only if we have a conception of morality that is intuitionist, but if we acknowledge the social origins of morality autism is a more appropriate comparison

>>1499736
not everyone's morals are "don't be a psychopath"

>>1499855
>if we acknowledge the social origins of morality
Is this still moral realism?

>>1499839
what?

>>1499868

No, it isn't. My bad, I was completely misunderstanding moral realism.

>>1499871
only you exist for you

it's as simple as that you mongoloid

File: 324134.png (211KB, 286x272px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 286x272px

Add another 30% of polled philosophers who think they aren't moral realists but make truth-apt moral statements.

File: 1435301312839.jpg (9KB, 226x224px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 226x224px

>>1499890
i might be a mogloid but at least i'm not rude

>>1499925
How do you say truth-apt?

>>1499830

Can you live a lie?

>>1499777
I guess majority of philosophers are retarded.

Why are so many philosophers moral realists?

Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.

How does one find a moral fact?

>>1499736
if moral are real than we shouldn't need empathy to arrive at them should we? Ice cold logic should be enough

>>1501858
> How does one find a moral fact?
By doing moral experiment in controlled setting.

No it's more like non psychopaths are blind.

>>1501837
The same reason everything awful exists in philosophy: Plato.

>>1501858
intuition

>>1501932
You can use a platonic framework without being a realist

>>1501932
isn't plato te smartest philospher

Yes. Epictetus has always written that evil people are actually blind, so we should feel sorry for them.

Moral relativism is a symptom of immaturity.

So let's assume that moral realism is true... then what? How is that really different from moral realism not being true?

It has always seemed tautologically self-evident to me that moral systems are social constructs - I don't like saying that therefore they are not real, anymore than I like saying that languages are not real, however I don't think moral realism refers to morality existing simply as a social construct. And it has always been self-evident that moral rules are about as "objectively true" as grammatical rules of a language, and I can't even imagine what it would even mean for them to be true in any other sense.

>>1501983
I was just making a joke man. But seriously, I would assume that the prevalence of moral realists in western philosophy could be traced back to the fact Plato and Aristotle both form the foundation of western philosophy for the most part. The fact it's only 56.4 is pretty surprising considering how influential those two and Christianity are in are philosophy.

>>1502054
>And it has always been self-evident
*self-evident to me

>>1500055
Truth and falsehoods react together equally, belief is the only thing that matters
You can live however you want through self-deception and interpretation of external noise

The will of El is the will of it
You are it as everything else is

>>1502054
read more

File: deviant.jpg (27KB, 359x428px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 359x428px

>>1499736
There's a lot of brands of moral realism, so that could easily be true - it's a very wide umbrella.

It'd include Utilitarians who believe that utility includes, first and foremost, survival, stability, and prosperity, rather than simply "the greatest happiness and least misery", as there is an objective path to those goals, but we can't perceive it with our limited human intellect and inability to predict every permutation of every act. (Granted that brand of Utilitarianism includes "happiness", since your dealing with the stability and prosperity of a species of emotional beings.)

Psychopaths are defective in that they lack the social instinct of empathy from which all morals derive, so I suppose the analogy is true, though deafness, representing some crippling communicative dysfunction, maybe more analogous.

>>1500182
Well why do you think they went into philosophy in the first place?

You think these cunts could be rocket scientists?

>>1499807
That's not a poll.

>>1502415
kys

>>1502176
Clarify

>>1500182
>I guess majority of philosophers are retarded.
>attempting to objectively explain pure subjectivity
Yep, they sure are.