Morality without God

[polymath257]

Well then let's get this silent premise "unsilented":1) My tires run most efficiently at 32 psi
2) My right front tire is at 25 psi
3) It is good that my tires run efficiently.
4) I ought to do what is good.
Therefore, I ought to fill my right front tire to 32 psi

Premise 1 and 2 are based on empirical observation. I mean ethical non-naturalists love empirical date in their premises, but they also see that premise 3 comes from an understanding of what is good. I don't see how the logic follows (how the ought gets into the conclusion) without premise 3. Yeah, premise 3 is a no-brainer. But it isn't derived from studying sense data in the world. It is derived from reason/understanding alone. Premise 3 is not a description of a feature in the world. Premise 4 is an axiom. Probably one you accept. As you probably agree, it isn't worth debating. If someone disagrees with premise 4, they simply aren't interested in morality. I put premise 4 there for due diligence, since invisible premises came up. You could replace this with other axioms "I desire that my car run efficiently"... "I ought to do what I desire" etc. But I left it the way it is to keep parallels with moral thinking easy to see.

I would frame 3 and 4 a bit differently.

3. If my tires run efficiently, I will save money and be safer.
4. I have a goal to save money and be safer.
5. So I should fill my tire to 32 psi to meet my goal.

The 'should' statement comes from the goal I have. That goal may or may not be 'good' in a larger scheme. But if I want to achieve my goal, certain actions need to be done.

The difficulty comes in selecting the goals. For example, having the goal of killing all of my enemies is not one that most societies recognize without limitations. Hence, my goals may well conflict with your goals. The question of whose goals take priority is, in some senses, the goal of laws and of morality (two very different things, I would point out).

And, I would say that in both law and morality, the idea is that there are more worthy goals and less worthy ones. There are goals that promote a smoothly functioning society and those that do not. There are those that promote happiness and well-being and those that do not.

The is/ought distinction seems to me to ultimately be a question of goals. The 'is' side has no goals: it says what various courses of action will lead to. The 'ought' chooses between the possibilities so as to meet certain desirable consequences. What makes a consequence desirable is the next issue, of course.