Interesting re Incans. I will leave that one there but simply ask again, whose morality should we be promoting and why do you call any given act moral. If it is just a matter of definition then I see no reason why it should guide our actions. It is the same as calling something an airplane - a conventionalised form-meaning pair that varies in different linguistic communities.
I don’t disagree that moral statements might have some utility in persuading someone, but not in compelling someone. I just don’t see what you are adding to “Jim hit someone” when you say “that is immoral” if all that means is “Jim hit someone”. If what you are adding is “and don’t dot it” then I don’t see why that is realist in terms of the metaethics. Why is your “don’t do it” better than anyone else's
And sure, there is nothing wrong with fiction… it can however in moral fiction make people hurt each other (which I don’t like and not because it is objectively wrong). If you don’t want people doing horrible stuff to each other in the name of some fiction, then maybe jettison it?
Are you admitting here that realism is merely fiction? I don’t think you are, but am not understanding
I don’t disagree that moral statements might have some utility in persuading someone, but not in compelling someone. I just don’t see what you are adding to “Jim hit someone” when you say “that is immoral” if all that means is “Jim hit someone”. If what you are adding is “and don’t dot it” then I don’t see why that is realist in terms of the metaethics. Why is your “don’t do it” better than anyone else's
And sure, there is nothing wrong with fiction… it can however in moral fiction make people hurt each other (which I don’t like and not because it is objectively wrong). If you don’t want people doing horrible stuff to each other in the name of some fiction, then maybe jettison it?
Are you admitting here that realism is merely fiction? I don’t think you are, but am not understanding
