Person A: believes morality comes from the Bible, as the source of what is right and wrong.
Person B: subscribes to a secular moral philosophy, and believes right and wrong is determined by whether it benefits or harms overall wellbeing.
Person C: Subscribes to an intuitionist type of view. He believes there's an objective moral reality, and that we don't discern right and wrong by a rational calculation, but more like we recognize a color, or light and darkness. Things that we perceive as part of the darkness are evil, things we see as part of the light are good.
All three recognize that the holocaust is immoral. And not just immoral but objectively immoral. That the wrongness that they're seeing isn't their personal opinion, or an expression of their likes or dislikes, or even their societies opinions or likes and dislikes, but a truth.
If we could do a brain scan, of how their minds came to recognize that the holocaust is immoral. Do you think that the pathways their mind took would look any different from each other?
Do you think Person A's mind, started to think of biblical passages that indicate that the holocaust is immoral, before recognizing it as immoral? And person B's mind started to think of the overall impact of the holocaust on whether it benefits or harmed overall wellbeing, to determine that it was immoral?
Or do you agree with me, that we'd likely see that their minds recognized it was wrong, by the same underlying way. That the wrongness was intuitively perceived first, prior to applying there particular moral beliefs to it. That such justification took place after the fact, are post hoc.
Person C's view or morality, particularly it's objectiveness appears to be the most accurate representation of morality of the three.
Person B: subscribes to a secular moral philosophy, and believes right and wrong is determined by whether it benefits or harms overall wellbeing.
Person C: Subscribes to an intuitionist type of view. He believes there's an objective moral reality, and that we don't discern right and wrong by a rational calculation, but more like we recognize a color, or light and darkness. Things that we perceive as part of the darkness are evil, things we see as part of the light are good.
All three recognize that the holocaust is immoral. And not just immoral but objectively immoral. That the wrongness that they're seeing isn't their personal opinion, or an expression of their likes or dislikes, or even their societies opinions or likes and dislikes, but a truth.
If we could do a brain scan, of how their minds came to recognize that the holocaust is immoral. Do you think that the pathways their mind took would look any different from each other?
Do you think Person A's mind, started to think of biblical passages that indicate that the holocaust is immoral, before recognizing it as immoral? And person B's mind started to think of the overall impact of the holocaust on whether it benefits or harmed overall wellbeing, to determine that it was immoral?
Or do you agree with me, that we'd likely see that their minds recognized it was wrong, by the same underlying way. That the wrongness was intuitively perceived first, prior to applying there particular moral beliefs to it. That such justification took place after the fact, are post hoc.
Person C's view or morality, particularly it's objectiveness appears to be the most accurate representation of morality of the three.
