To me, it just needlessly mystifies the entire process. Like many, many fields, we've been able to figure out the underlying physical basis for morality courtesy of evolutionary biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, neurology, game theory, etc. If we know that there's an optimal strategy of not having a society of murderous, rapey thieves, then why do we need 'moral facts' that only seem to cloud the issue?
My other issue is that there seems to be very little evidence for an external moral authority of any sort, even once you dispose of the claptrap that religion burdened us with. To me it's a notion that's neither useful nor demonstrated, much like the luminiferous aether.
My other issue is that there seems to be very little evidence for an external moral authority of any sort, even once you dispose of the claptrap that religion burdened us with. To me it's a notion that's neither useful nor demonstrated, much like the luminiferous aether.
