RE: Morality
January 22, 2019 at 1:03 pm
(This post was last modified: January 22, 2019 at 1:10 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Non natural realism accounts for this not by delusion or even...strictly, falsehood..but by reference to disparate beliefs about empirical data.
So, for example..the idea that homosex should be illegal is informed by the non natural fact of the moral status of harm...and a specific belief about the empirical effect of homosex as it relates to harm. The same, again, with slavery.
Lets take a broad kernel of objection common to both anti homosex and pro slavery. If we don't do this thing I'm telling us to do, civilization will crumble. We need slaves, we need to outlaw homosex. The harm is contended to be in the terminus of failing to meet a consequential need. If you explain to that person that there is no such need, then you will have changed their mind about an empirical fact...not a moral fact. Their new position on empirical facts may, however, alter their evaluation of an act or situation. They may, for example..view slavery or anti homosex initiatives as among the set of harmful things - particularly if you also detail empirical cases of that.
To non natural realism..moral difference, is more accurately and more commonly...empirical difference. There is little to no moral difference between two people who often seem to be directly at odds. This isn't limited to morality, either..we can make the same observations in the subject of practicality (I use a fire extinguisher example).
So, for example..the idea that homosex should be illegal is informed by the non natural fact of the moral status of harm...and a specific belief about the empirical effect of homosex as it relates to harm. The same, again, with slavery.
Lets take a broad kernel of objection common to both anti homosex and pro slavery. If we don't do this thing I'm telling us to do, civilization will crumble. We need slaves, we need to outlaw homosex. The harm is contended to be in the terminus of failing to meet a consequential need. If you explain to that person that there is no such need, then you will have changed their mind about an empirical fact...not a moral fact. Their new position on empirical facts may, however, alter their evaluation of an act or situation. They may, for example..view slavery or anti homosex initiatives as among the set of harmful things - particularly if you also detail empirical cases of that.
To non natural realism..moral difference, is more accurately and more commonly...empirical difference. There is little to no moral difference between two people who often seem to be directly at odds. This isn't limited to morality, either..we can make the same observations in the subject of practicality (I use a fire extinguisher example).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
