(June 7, 2024 at 1:32 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Appearances can be deceiving. An interesting question is, if there is naturalistic morality, and we have evolved intuitions that align with the good in nature, in what way did that good bring selective pressures to bear on the evolution of our intuitions. It doesn't seem like there is a ready story which explains the natural selection of moral intuitions even if morality is imbued in nature. On the other hand, we don't question our intuitions concerning logic and things like the principle of non-contradiction or our mathematical intuitions, and those seem to present similar challenges.
Agreed that the causal power of proposed moral properties / values seems difficult to understand - I am curious how people would argue for that.
Could there be a relevant difference though between moral reasoning and mathematical or logical thought? I am not sure that it is the case that accurately reasoning according to logic or mathematics is much more than a useful way to achieve a goal or solve a problem. If I want to get a right answer, mathematics and logic will help in some situations. I don’t see how it would be wrong to choose not to reason correctly, it wouldn’t lead to useful results, but that isn’t the same as not acting morally is supposed to be.
I am on holiday next week and am planning on reading Terence Cuneo’s Normative Web, I think he will be arguing the way you have there.
