I appreciate the frustration.
When talking about factual statements that we would both agree are factual/objective, such as agreeing upon the colour of an object we both see in front of us, it seems we can frame our understanding of that objective truth in terms of a statement's verifiability or falsifiability, in empiricism and measurement and sense data, in terms of deduction and logic. And it seems that objective external truths would exist regardless of subjective observers - even if there were no conscious beings to observe it, the earth would still be floating in space.
But with moral statements I can't see how any of those things can even apply. How can we measure, test, observe, falsify, and so on, any moral statement? How can murder be wrong if no agents exist? Etc.
It seems to me that the only ways to hold to moral realism is to either a) place great value on personal intuition, or b) place great value on some source of authority, like divine revelation.
Where am I going wrong?
When talking about factual statements that we would both agree are factual/objective, such as agreeing upon the colour of an object we both see in front of us, it seems we can frame our understanding of that objective truth in terms of a statement's verifiability or falsifiability, in empiricism and measurement and sense data, in terms of deduction and logic. And it seems that objective external truths would exist regardless of subjective observers - even if there were no conscious beings to observe it, the earth would still be floating in space.
But with moral statements I can't see how any of those things can even apply. How can we measure, test, observe, falsify, and so on, any moral statement? How can murder be wrong if no agents exist? Etc.
It seems to me that the only ways to hold to moral realism is to either a) place great value on personal intuition, or b) place great value on some source of authority, like divine revelation.
Where am I going wrong?
