(September 11, 2019 at 1:26 pm)Acrobat Wrote: Person A: believes morality comes from the Bible, as the source of what is right and wrong.
Person B: subscribes to a secular moral philosophy, and believes right and wrong is determined by whether it benefits or harms overall wellbeing.
Person C: Subscribes to an intuitionist type of view. He believes there's an objective moral reality, and that we don't discern right and wrong by a rational calculation, but more like we recognize a color, or light and darkness. Things that we perceive as part of the darkness are evil, things we see as part of the light are good.
All three recognize that the holocaust is immoral. And not just immoral but objectively immoral. That the wrongness that they're seeing isn't their personal opinion, or an expression of their likes or dislikes, or even their societies opinions or likes and dislikes, but a truth.
If we could do a brain scan, of how their minds came to recognize that the holocaust is immoral. Do you think that the pathways their mind took would look any different from each other?
Do you think Person A's mind, started to think of biblical passages that indicate that the holocaust is immoral, before recognizing it as immoral? And person B's mind started to think of the overall impact of the holocaust on whether it benefits or harmed overall wellbeing, to determine that it was immoral?
Or do you agree with me, that we'd likely see that their minds recognized it was wrong, by the same underlying way. That the wrongness was intuitively perceived first, prior to applying there particular moral beliefs to it. That such justification took place after the fact, are post hoc.
Person C's view or morality, particularly it's objectiveness appears to be the most accurate representation of morality of the three.
I would say that out intuitiveness is not trustworthy. I still believe person B would obtain the best morality if we can reason and think about actions and compare it to the standard of well being. Our intuition may lead us to believe that lying is wrong in a situation where telling a lie may do the most good. I would also say that person B would not call it a truth because their standard is subjective, it may be a truth when compared to the standard. I agree that we may all operate initially like person C but without questioning that morality how do we know it is moral?
