OK, i have just started to look at ethics, anybody simplify moral realism for me?

Question

if you can that would be good. This is for personal knowledge not for an assignement or anything so as simple as possible without losing the relevance would be good.

Answer 1

First one has to address what reality means. For me, I believe that there is a "total" reality, or that there is one true pair of "lenses." For instance, if there was a fight, each individual would "see" the fight from separate viewpoints. However, there is what truly happened in which no one person is able to grasp in its totality.

It was once said that reality is just a misery one tries to wake up from. And in a way that is true. Each and every day we live our lives looking at the world the way we want to see it and not in its totality. Each day we are chained by our beliefs which warps our view of total reality. Once we grasp total reality, we can then liberate our minds

Moral realism is similar. Once we grasp our own version of reality, we then proceed to built up our version of moral realism as well in the context of our viewpoints. For instance, if one was raised in the streets with blood and violence being an everyday happening, then this would be his or her version of reality, and from that, will build up his or her moral values which, put together, becomes their moral realism. Just like reality, I also believe in a total realism, a state in which something is interpreted from total reality and is beyond the grasp of most of us. The closest relation to this total reality would be nirvana, or a state of perfect contentment

Answer 2

Are you talking about moral realism or moral relativism? Moral relativism is the belief that there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong because each situation is different, so what may be "wrong" in one case may be "OK" or "right" in another. Moral realism deals with how people actually apply their beliefs in a "real world" context. For example, if you believe that murder is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances, and you're faced with a situation where someone else is going to kill you unless you kill that other person first, what do you do?

Answer 3

Moral Realism
First published Mon Oct 3, 2005; substantive revision Thu Oct 6, 2005

Taken at face value, the claim that Nigel has a moral obligation to keep his promise, like the claim that Nyx is a black cat, purports to report a fact and is true if things are as the claim purports. Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value – moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true. That much is the common (and more or less defining) ground of moral realism.

As a result, those who reject moral realism are usefully divided into (i) those who think moral claims do not purport to report facts in light of which they are true or false (noncognitivists) and (ii) those who think that moral claims do carry this purport but deny that any moral claims are actually true (error theorists).

It is worth noting that, while moral realists are united in their cognitivism and in their rejection of error theories, they disagree among themselves not only about which moral claims are actually true but about what it is about the world that makes those claims true. Moral realism is not a specific substantive view nor does it carry a distinctive metaphysical commitment over and above the commitment that comes with thinking moral claims can be true or false and some are true. Still, much of the debate about moral realism revolves around either what it takes for claims to be true or false at all (with some arguing that moral claims do not have what it takes) or what it would take specifically for moral claims to be true (with some arguing that moral claims would require something the world does not provide).

The debate between moral realists and anti-realists assumes, though, that there is a shared object of inquiry – in this case, a range of claims all involved are willing to recognize as moral claims — about which two questions can be raised and answered: Do these claims purport to report facts in light of which they are true or false? Are some of them true? Moral realists answer ‘yes’ to both, non-cognitivists answer ‘no’ to the first (and, by default, ‘no’ to the second) while error theorists answer ‘yes’ to the first and ‘no’ to the second. To note that some other claims do not (or do) purport to report facts or that none (or some) of them are true, is to change the subject. That said, it is strikingly hard to nail down with any accuracy just which claims are at issue in the debate. For the most part, those concerned with whether moral realism is true are forced to work back and forth between an intuitive grasp of the claims at issue and an articulate but controversial account of what they have in common such that realism either is, or is not, defensible about them.

By all accounts, moral realism can fairly claim to have common sense and initial appearances on its side. That advantage, however, is easily outweighed. Indeed, there are a number of powerful arguments for holding that it is a mistake to think of moral claims as true.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

Answer 4

First of all anything "moral" is subjective, thus it can 't be simply stated.

Also, realism is subjective.

Because of moral realism.......ethics is, thus your answer....there will always be questions of what is real and what is truely moral.

Answer 5

Realists see the world for what it is rather than what it should be, and work towards a better world e.g. a realist would lock his door because he knows there are burglars, while an idealist refuses to accept that such things exist and leaves it open and refuses to deal with crime problems (these are extreme cases). Needless to say, realists are more rational.

Answer 6

Moral realism is remembering to breathe.

Answer 7

a million and four. you ought to be there on your buddy. Is it very well worth leaving the relationship? in case you fairly won't be able to stand the others, than 2 besides. yet you ought to no longer circulate away your buddy, except she starts to circulate down that direction besides, then only say "you be attentive to what, i do no longer think of i visit be waiting to hold out with you anymore, in case you maintain going the way you're." nonetheless try to make your buddy see the actuality, yet as long as you're no longer harm by skill of her or him, you ought to no longer circulate away the relationship.

Answer 8

Nope.....sorry.
Moral Realism is an oxymoron.

Answer 9

I'm confuzzled!

Answer 10

no because its not simple.....