(May 2, 2018 at 12:46 pm)robvalue Wrote: This is mainly aimed at people who believe that "objective morality" is a coherent concept, and that there can be some sorts of statements about it which are independent of all opinion. I'll let each person approach it with whatever definition of morality they want.
Let's say you discovered that you are incorrect about some position you currently hold. You have concluded so far that, "A is a moral/immoral action, under circumstances C". Add whatever other caveats you like. Now imagine that you have access to "moral facts" somehow, and that it shows the opposite to be true.
Which of your positions would you be willing to reverse? Would you now act differently, and judge others acting that way differently?
Personally, I don't care about any such "facts", as I feel it would represent nothing more than some specific way of evaluating actions. Without a supporting argument as to why I should change my position by adopting this system, I won't be changing my actions or my judgements. I don't see it as a factual matter.
I think after learning there are moral facts, the next step would be trying to figure out the implications. If morality turns out to be "You can do anything you want, just don't hurt a squirrel." I'm going to spend a lot of time wondering what the hell is up with squirrels.
It's like any new facts. You reevaluate, taking into consideration the new available knowledge, and react accordingly. All hail Butternut the Squirrel God King!
