RE: A Moral Reality
September 12, 2019 at 9:22 am
(This post was last modified: September 12, 2019 at 9:26 am by GrandizerII.)
(September 12, 2019 at 7:21 am)Acrobat Wrote:(September 11, 2019 at 10:05 pm)Grandizer Wrote: You should go back to the OP and reread. You posed a question that is clearly answerable by science.
Sure, the OP was about how it looked like at the level of the brain. It doesn't address the source of it, the stimuli that the brain to perceive what it does. The OP was primarily composed to show how A and B are post hoc justifications.
Your OP is just one of various ways of looking at morality. You think B is necessarily a post hoc justification, and others say it's what you do when you try to explain about why something is right or wrong (rather than how you arrive at believing something is right or wrong). So B and C are not mutually exclusive.
Quote:Quote:And based on my understanding of the sciences, how we've evolved morally has a lot to do with wellbeing and flourishing and such. It's just not definitive yet and is far more complex than just one stock answer to the question of human morality.
Our biological features aren't the same as rationally deduced considerations. All of our biological tendency's, and inclination both good and bad exists as the result of the survival and reproductive benefits they offered. Secondly morality isn' just about matters of behaviors, but beliefs.And one of those beliefs, thats near universal is a perception of an objective moral reality out there. If such a reality exists it can't be reduced to our biology, anymore so than any other objective object can be.
Beliefs are linked to one's biology. One believes X is good ultimately because of one's biology, not because they're divine beings who can somehow transcend their own biological nature.
Objective realities aren't reduced to one's biology, but you can't get from this to therefore one can adequately apprehend such reality. It also doesn't mean an objective moral reality is a perfect reality free of head-scratching dilemmas.
By the way, according to Moore, you're in the same boat as a moral naturalist. Because you define good in terms of a god, rather than just simply that good is indefinable.
