If moral realism is true* are psychopaths analogous to blind people?

what?

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

only you exist for you

it's as simple as that you mongoloid

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

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

How do you say truth-apt?

Can you live a lie?

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?

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

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

No it's more like non psychopaths are blind.

The same reason everything awful exists in philosophy: Plato.

intuition

You can use a platonic framework without being a realist

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.

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.

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

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

read more

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.

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

You think these cunts could be rocket scientists?

That's not a poll.

kys

Clarify

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