There is a coherence to this view of moral realism that is attractive. Personally i've always sat on the fence wrt realism v relativism v nihilism, all seemingly having points in their favour but also flawed, although I have tended to nihilism.
If we can 'ground' morality in observable facts which are driven from desires or pleasures, which lead to actions involving value etc, it does rather suggest that we could be acting immorally by eating animals, doesn't it? It would be hard to grant desires to vegetables and some animals but not to all animals. Objectively I enjoy steak but the cow presumably does not? Furthermore what about actions and their consequences (wrt value) that involve only involuntary responses (ie those which we do not desire but are compelled to do, ie flight or fight response, breathing etc). How would these be factored into such an outlook?
If we can 'ground' morality in observable facts which are driven from desires or pleasures, which lead to actions involving value etc, it does rather suggest that we could be acting immorally by eating animals, doesn't it? It would be hard to grant desires to vegetables and some animals but not to all animals. Objectively I enjoy steak but the cow presumably does not? Furthermore what about actions and their consequences (wrt value) that involve only involuntary responses (ie those which we do not desire but are compelled to do, ie flight or fight response, breathing etc). How would these be factored into such an outlook?
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
