(March 13, 2017 at 9:40 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Harm =/= selective advantage. Is the scale of morality harm or is it selective advantage?That's right. I've discussed that already, I think.
Quote:All well and good, but is it a moral theory? A theory on the evolutionary origin of morality is not necessarily informative as to what our moral imperatives are, and where they come from...today.I've never claimed that my definition of moral facts or moral objectivity was useful. I doubt it, since we can't see the future. However, there may be some utility in considering things this way: not digging in because I'm "right," but considering the long-term implications of an action. A good example would be bombing wedding to get bad guys. You might be "right" in getting the bad guys, but the long term effect will be some deeply angry people and possible retribution.
Quote:Christards are in moral disagreement with us. Not, usually, about whether morality is objective...but the contents of their purportedly objective moralities...particularly as compared to others. However, let's just use an easy one. We're all pretty sure murder is bad. We've all got some extenuating circumstance and minutae... but we can draw a line on that one with reasonable certainty. Do christards and ourselves both think that murder is wrong for some reason x...or do we both think that murder is wrong because the moral statement purports to reports facts, does report facts, and is true? They may be deluded, largely..or we may be, or we both may be to some extant or another...but on this question?I'd say implicit in views about murder is a social instinct. All our goals, basically, are expressions of love, fear, and so on. However, when ideas are skewed by false beliefs, for example in an eternal soul which mediates the effects of murder (read: crusades, torture, drone strikes), then I'd argue that (though we can't know for sure), we'd suspect that they've wandered pretty far from the moral facts.
