(May 14, 2019 at 1:42 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: We make up every category and every word to describe it for any distinction under the sun. This does not demonstrate that the categories or their contents depend on people.
Every rose in the world would still be a rose if men weren't there to name them.
The thing we call natural evil is different from the thing we call moral evil. For specificity's sake, we use two terms to refer to those disparate categories of x. Just as you might use "cat" or "dog" instead of "animal" if you wanted me to feed one or the other. Unless roses, cats, and dogs are equally "totally dependent on the observer" we're going to have to figure out why moral x's are the special case. What is it that makes us cognitivists and realists when it comes to the first three, but not the other?
False equivalency.
Roses, dogs and cats are quantifiable physical things.
Good, evil, moral and natural are simply concepts - ideas - and totally dependent on an observer who can understand the concept.
