Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Sending/Receiving email functionality is not going away, you can continue to communicate via any email client with your group members. Learn More
- Jan 5, 2015I do not see how moral realism is incompatible with moral actualism. Perhaps you can say more about what moral actualism is?Moral Realism, to make it more explicit, is an answer to the Euthyphro problem in Plato's writings.Moral realism says that the Gods (if any there be) love good things, because whether or not things themselves are good is a matter which swings free of the whims and fancies of the Gods.Moral realism says beauty is essentially not 'in the eye of the beholder', rather, beauty is the thing which the beholders of beauty behold, and they behold beautiful things as beautiful, because even if there were no beholders the beautiful things would still nevertheless be beautiful.I don't see how actualism is fundamentally incompatible with the assertions above. I also ought to make it explicit that I am agnostic towards the issue, though I certainly do believe there are good and beautiful things afoot in the world, for one reason or another.-ChuckOn Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:58 AM, paulmsrf@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Hello Chuck,
if moral realism, why not moral actualism?;consider what Hegel saysgiven their is no need to translate Bradley:The real world perhaps consciously, may be identified witha spatial system which we construct. This is 'actual fact' andeverything else may be set apart as mere thought, or asmere imagination or feeling, all equally unreal.(Appearence and Reality, 1930)I don't get the perhaps, but the rest seems to easily underminethe realists position.Paul Healey - << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>