RE: “Normative” ethical theories
September 21, 2025 at 4:53 pm
(This post was last modified: September 21, 2025 at 5:03 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Why should I care and is it true are not the same question. Realism could be true and we may still not care.
In realist -or- quasi realist argumentation we promote action on objective metrics because we believe that people are compelled by such statements. I am grounding "Jim should keep his hands to himself" better than you because I am grounding it -at all-..even if I am grounding it in a compelling error.
Or do you mean something else by better?
Do I think it's just my opinion? Well, no. Do you? If you share my opinion it isn't -just- my opinion. Is it just you and me? What if we both want to hit people but at least one of us realizes that we shouldn't, even so, for reasons that are no less (or more) true than any other fact alike statement? The only sense that moral realism is ever "better" in the way you're asking is when or if it is more accurate. More accurate both as a description of how we apprehend moral content, or more accurate as to the facts of the matter at hand that we are purporting to report on (and...hypothetically, failing, as the case seems to be or must be in our possible anti-realist world). Better, in a utilitarian sense, is just whatever makes people move.
Obviously, if realist normative ethics have cause enough trouble™ in the world to warrant their abolition the ability to move people can hardly be questioned.
In realist -or- quasi realist argumentation we promote action on objective metrics because we believe that people are compelled by such statements. I am grounding "Jim should keep his hands to himself" better than you because I am grounding it -at all-..even if I am grounding it in a compelling error.
Or do you mean something else by better?
Do I think it's just my opinion? Well, no. Do you? If you share my opinion it isn't -just- my opinion. Is it just you and me? What if we both want to hit people but at least one of us realizes that we shouldn't, even so, for reasons that are no less (or more) true than any other fact alike statement? The only sense that moral realism is ever "better" in the way you're asking is when or if it is more accurate. More accurate both as a description of how we apprehend moral content, or more accurate as to the facts of the matter at hand that we are purporting to report on (and...hypothetically, failing, as the case seems to be or must be in our possible anti-realist world). Better, in a utilitarian sense, is just whatever makes people move.
Obviously, if realist normative ethics have cause enough trouble™ in the world to warrant their abolition the ability to move people can hardly be questioned.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
