道德现实主义是对普通道德观的明确表述，认为善恶是客观存在的，我们有能力识别且有道德义务。但它存在诸多问题，如善恶定义不明、义务解释不清、道德判断存在差异等。

🎯道德现实主义认为善恶客观存在，我们能识别并应履行道德义务。

❓道德现实主义对善恶无科学定义，未解释义务来源及如何施加。

🤔个体、文化和社会间道德判断存在差异，多数道德分歧难以理性解决。

😕道德具有临时性，难以用少量原则一致解释，且现实中道德与伪善相关。

Published on November 7, 2024 10:14 AM GMT

Moral realism is an explicit version of the ordinary view of morality. It has the following assumptions:

Good and evil are objectively real.We have the ability to recognize good and evil.We have an objective moral obligation to do good and not do evil. Likewise, we have an objective moral right to not have evil done to us.Society depends on morality to exist. The social order is created by human goodness, and it is destroyed by evil.

There are many problems with moral realism, including:

Moral realism has no definition of good and evil. If good and evil are objectively real properties or substances, like temperature or oxygen, it should be possible to define them in scientific terms.Why are we obliged to do good and not do evil? Moral realism does not explain why we have this obligation, nor how it is imposed on us.Moral judgments vary between individuals, cultures and societies. If good and evil are objective, and humans have essentially the same ability to recognize good and evil, then we would expect moral judgments to be mostly the same. But they are not.In most cases, moral disagreements cannot be resolved by rational persuasion. If good and evil are objective, and humans have the ability to recognize good and evil, then we should be able to resolve moral disagreements with evidence and arguments. But we can’t.Morality is ad hoc. Moral judgments can’t be reduced to a small number of principles applied consistently. The ad hoc nature of morality is hard to explain if morality reflects objective good and evil.If moral realism is true, then most people would be morally good. But evil is pervasive. Individuals and societies don’t behave in a morally good way, generally speaking. Morality is often linked to hypocrisy.

Let’s go through these problems in more detail, starting with the definition of good and evil.

What are good and evil?

If good and evil are objectively real, then we should be able to measure them, analogous to how we measure height or temperature. We could construct a device to measure things on this objective moral dimension, in a way that is free from personal biases. Then we could use the device to resolve moral conflicts, in the same way that we can use a ruler to resolve a disagreement about height. But of course, we can’t do any of those things for good and evil.

(see the rest of the post in the link)

Discuss