Can we trust our Moral Intuitions?

[Alan V]

I don't find natural realism to be ambiguous,  though.  It's sort of hard to see how it could be as it leverages facts of a given matter and reports it's conclusions based upon those facts in specificity.  It could be wrong, very wrong..but ambiguous?

I understand your point about facts being the basis of moral judgments.  But why intervene at all in a naturalistic system?  It would seem that most of our moral interventions have led to an even bigger problem with climate change, and at that point we have to reconsider our moral assessments and immediate human commitments versus the longer-term interests of humanity and of the natural environment.  At that point a lot of "obvious" moral assessments become more ambiguous, to the point that I personally am really only interested in climate change as a political issue.  Why save lots of people in the short run if the result is that even more die in the long run -- that sort of thing.

In other words, since I see pluses and minuses all mixed up together (which is how I see naturalism), it's hard to find enough information or to trust my own assessments enough to see the way clear to be concerned about much more than my narrow personal interests on one hand and climate change on the other.

As one climate change book title read, "This Changes Everything."