I don’t know much about philosophy, but I guess that when most people use words like “good” or “bad”, they mean “stance-independently good/bad”—that if they meant purely “I support it” or “I oppose it”, then those are the words they’d use. Or do you think they call such ideas “good” or “bad” for short?
I’ve also seen quotes like “Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it. Right is right, even if no one is doing it.”, but I don’t know how popular they are.
Why do you think that's what they mean? I simply do not see any good reason to think that when most people talk about things being morally good or bad that they mean "stance-independently." I am not suggesting they are relativists or moral antirealists, either. What I'm saying is that I don't think there are good reasons to think they're moral realists.
It seems to me most people use words like “good” and “bad” in sentences similarly to how they use words like “salty” or “blue” that (they think) refer to existing, external facts about the world. They debate whether something is good or bad, instead of simply stating that some people support it and others oppose it. But maybe most people don’t think about the exact meaning of such words at all.
(1) In which languages? There are 7000+ languages. Also, at least some aspects of the way people speak about morality in English fit better with antirealism than realism, see e.g.,:
(2) It doesn't seem like they use moral claims to refer to stance-independent facts to me. What about moral language would give you that impression? Sure, moral claims are often made in the indicative mood, but that's about it.
(3) Engaging in moral debate does not require or presuppose realism. People debate how good movies and restaurants are all the time, for instance. People also argue about where to go for dinner or vacation. It's not plausible there are objective facts about where you should go on vacation.
1-2.: Sorry it took me so long to read the article. I think the Hungarian word for “find”, “talál”, also works the way described there, though, like in English, it’s not often used to express opinions. It’s also used in expressions like “the court found him innocent/guilty”, where the court might be trying to find out something they think is objective.
I still think that in Hungarian, English, German, French, and Russian, most people don’t use words like “good” interchangeably with expressions like “I like/want/support”—they seem to use them in a different sense, and that sense might include stance-independence. Though some people might not see a difference between morality and societal conventions, if they think about the subject at all.
3. I agree that people can try to convince each other of their goals even if they don’t see their goals as objectively right. (I think there are specific parts of debates that might refer to ideas seen as objective.)
I don’t know much about philosophy, but I guess that when most people use words like “good” or “bad”, they mean “stance-independently good/bad”—that if they meant purely “I support it” or “I oppose it”, then those are the words they’d use. Or do you think they call such ideas “good” or “bad” for short?
I’ve also seen quotes like “Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it. Right is right, even if no one is doing it.”, but I don’t know how popular they are.
Why do you think that's what they mean? I simply do not see any good reason to think that when most people talk about things being morally good or bad that they mean "stance-independently." I am not suggesting they are relativists or moral antirealists, either. What I'm saying is that I don't think there are good reasons to think they're moral realists.
It seems to me most people use words like “good” and “bad” in sentences similarly to how they use words like “salty” or “blue” that (they think) refer to existing, external facts about the world. They debate whether something is good or bad, instead of simply stating that some people support it and others oppose it. But maybe most people don’t think about the exact meaning of such words at all.
(1) In which languages? There are 7000+ languages. Also, at least some aspects of the way people speak about morality in English fit better with antirealism than realism, see e.g.,:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-024-02140-8
(2) It doesn't seem like they use moral claims to refer to stance-independent facts to me. What about moral language would give you that impression? Sure, moral claims are often made in the indicative mood, but that's about it.
(3) Engaging in moral debate does not require or presuppose realism. People debate how good movies and restaurants are all the time, for instance. People also argue about where to go for dinner or vacation. It's not plausible there are objective facts about where you should go on vacation.
1-2.: Sorry it took me so long to read the article. I think the Hungarian word for “find”, “talál”, also works the way described there, though, like in English, it’s not often used to express opinions. It’s also used in expressions like “the court found him innocent/guilty”, where the court might be trying to find out something they think is objective.
I still think that in Hungarian, English, German, French, and Russian, most people don’t use words like “good” interchangeably with expressions like “I like/want/support”—they seem to use them in a different sense, and that sense might include stance-independence. Though some people might not see a difference between morality and societal conventions, if they think about the subject at all.
3. I agree that people can try to convince each other of their goals even if they don’t see their goals as objectively right. (I think there are specific parts of debates that might refer to ideas seen as objective.)