Proving What We Already "Know"

[bennyboy]

Let me be clear, here.  I'm speaking specifically of a moral world view, not of all world views.  A moral view is predicated on what SHOULD BE, in contrast with what IS.  This is different from say a scientific world view, which attempts to model reality as it is (whether it's complete or not).

I fail to see how that rescues the gross inaccuracy of the demands I responded to.  Why should there be no need for moral consideration, if any moral worldview matched with reality?  Why should there be no term morality, if any moral system matched with reality?  Here again you're pleading a special case....positively insisting on a special case - but a moral view does not have to be a special case.  Sure, different types of views are different for many reasons, but there's no reason that any type of view about anything being accurate or matching with reality would mean that there would be no need for consideration of that subject or for terms to accurately communicate it to others.

If nobody ever raped, you wouldn't sit around formulating the idea of rape and establishing social conventions for dealing with it. You wouldn't even have a word for it.

If nothing ever died, you wouldn't have to evaluate the consequences of death, and establish principles of rights to live.