In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order

[John 6IX Breezy]

Good and bad when it comes to morality are perceived and applied similarly to how we apply true and false, and not how we apply good and bad when speaking of food.

If this isn’t evident, we can all acknowledge when we talk about good or bad when it comes to food we’re ultimately expressing ours likes and dislikes, where hardly anyone here would agree that good and bad when it comes to morality are saying things reducible to their likes and dislikes.

Most people here would likely agree that when they express that the holocaust is wrong, they’re expressing something objectively true, like the earth isn’t flat, or 1+1=5, is wrong. Rather than an expression of the subjective taste or opinions, like x was a good movie.

In fact, even outside of their beliefs, morality operates similarly to objective truth as well, such as the Nazis had to delude and lie to themselves to view the holocaust as the right thing, the way in which people delude themselves into believing Sandyhook conspiracies. Something you couldnt say of someone who  had a different taste in food or movies than you or I.

It seems to me that when most people express that the holocaust is wrong, they're expressing something they believe is objectively true. When questioned about the reasons for such a view, individuals tend to resort to emotion and intuition rather than observation and reasoning; in a way that is perhaps similar to someone being asked why they like or don't like broccoli. They are described as being morally dumbfounded (Haidt et al., 2000).

Reference: Haidt, J., Bjorklund, F., & Murphy, S. (2000). Moral dumbfounding: When intuition finds no reason. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia.