genkaus Wrote:Then you are starting odd on the wrong foot. Your moral sense would be the result of descriptive morality of your society and therefore any normative moral code you come up with as a result would be a reflection of that
By your logic the way to find out what is right or wrong is to consult a sociologist and ask them what the prevailing norms of one's society are! Want to find out whether capital punishment is right or wrong? Just do a survey of your society.
For the purposes of my argument it does not matter what causes us to have the moral sensations we do. How many times? Moral sensations are not morality. If morality exists, they are the means by which we are acquainted with it. If it does not, they constitute a hallucination. Either way, they are not morality. So quite why you feel the need to give me a story about the causes of our moral sensations is beyond me. Moral sensation are moral phenomena, they are not morality itself. Morality is the thing our moral sensations give us an impression of. Your visual sense data is not the outside world, is it? It gives you the impression of an outside world. If there really is an outside world then one means by which you are acquainted with it is via your visual sense. If there is not an external world then your visual sense data constitutes a hallucination.
You must be confusing morality with moral sensations.
Quote:The existence of multiple moralities all with different instructions seems to belie your statement.
There aren't multiple moralities. You are misusing the word 'morality' or using it in a grossly misleading and silly way. You are using it to refer to different collections of moral beliefs. You are labelling a collection of moral beliefs 'a morality'. That's as silly as labelling a collection of beliefs about tables 'a table'.
Morality is not a collection of beliefs. It is the object of those beliefs. It is the thing believed. Ignore these elementary distinctions at your cost - most people do.
