What is real morality?

@skado Not really valid question, since morality, may be both real and unreal, depending on how you define real and morality. It is certainly not real, for example, if you define "real" as having a provable material existence outside of the human mind. It is however real, if you define real, as anything having an existence, either within or without the human mind, and having an affect on human actions. A far better question is. What is the best morality ? And, Is there a universal morality or just a best morality for our local social situation ?

@Fernapple
I was just wondering what jack was referring to with his use of the term “real morality”.

@skado I see, perhaps he was assuming that to be "real" morality had to obey the basic rules of logic.

@Fernapple
Maybe he will tell us.

@skado I was referring to something outside the individualistic, religious arena. What real morality is is a big question but, to me, it has to include all LIFE not just one puny species.

I am curious if philosophy in general or specific parts can be science. Theoretical science is often the bases for applied sciences and philosophy may offer theories that can be studied in scientific terms.

You are correct to say that science alone does not address morals, but I do not treat science and reason as the same, or I would not mention both, the use of both words should make that clear. Though I do think that they should be complimentary, since where reason is in conflict with science it is clear that one of them, usually, though not always, the philosophy, is wrong. While the scientific method which is the most advanced form of philosophy, is by far the best check on the lesser forms, though only within its limited range of usage. Therefore I choose to use both together since I value that which is supported by both, more highly than that which is supported only by one.

And Kant's ethic, especially the Universalization principle is another good example, of an ethic based on reason, which is not in conflict with science. I do not include it, partially because it it one of the ones that religious apologists are very fond of attacking, and which they think, though wrongly, they can destroy.

Since sadly however you are quite wrong in your assumption that "Nobody denies that morality can be based on reason alone" since that is a very regular position among religious apologists. Indeed almost the standard position among many of them, and one which I was myself taken in by, having debated with religious apologists who claimed to be able to disprove Kant and all other moral philosophers. It is a very bad world out there among the religious, who will even try to prove that the earth is flat, and that Newton's physics is wrongs if it suits them. So I am sorry to say that the morals of Kant, Epicurus, Hume etc. are commonly targeted and often treated with contempt.

@Fernapple I had to think about "Nobody denies that morality can be based on reason alone." Religion is not based on reason so how can they support that idea. I don't see where I assumed that idea.

@jackjr No it was Thibauld who assumed that idea, not you. I was quoting his comment.

@Fernapple Thank you. We all know what assuming does. I have learned almost nothing is B & W but shades of gray.