RE: Subjective Morality?
October 30, 2018 at 8:46 am
(This post was last modified: October 30, 2018 at 8:48 am by Angrboda.)
(October 30, 2018 at 4:56 am)bennyboy Wrote: There's a pretty important difference. A cat, presumably, is more than an idea. Whether or not there's really (really really) a cat there, I can see something, and can call it cat.
The moral realist would say that morals are more than simply ideas as well, that it's true, our conception of morals is an idea, but that it is an idea that refers to something in the real world. In the same way, physical realism consists of ideas, as that is the only access we have to reality and the world, but the ideas themselves are postulated to refer to something, a cat, which exists in a reality that is independent of the idea itself. There really is no difference between cat realism and physical realism, both depend on ideas which are inferred to represent independently existing realities, but neither actually has access to that reality. The only difference is you're willing to make that inference with regard to physical realism, but not with respect to moral realism. But the fact of the matter is we have no different access to the existence of an independent physical reality than we have to an indepently existing realm of moral facts. You simply have a double standard regarding the two, likely based upon some hypothetical difference between the phenomenology of morals relative to the phenomenology of the physical world within our thoughts (our perceptual experience). There is definitely a difference in the phenomenology of the two, but that fact alone isn't decisive. There is a difference between the phenomenology of numbers and that of physical reality, but we don't on that account conclude that numbers are necessarily subjective.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)