In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order

[Acrobat]

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 why, 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 describe 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 Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia.

I think this is slightly amiss. 

The objectiveness of morality is more a matter of seeing than believing. We recognizing the wrongness of the holocaust, without putting it through some moral formula to deduce it. Recognizing that the holocaust was wrong, or that lynching tree was wrong, is more a matter of peeling off a blindfold, than any sort of logical or rational argument. So I agree with the idea of moral dumbfounding, that the sort of rational explanation given for it, are post hoc rationalizations. 

People perceive rightness and wrongness as objective, regardless of whatever reasons they think are the basis for why that is, regardless of whether they lack a particular moral philosophy etc... 

Now perhaps this perception is false, and it's not objective at all, but really it's just a matter of things we strongly like or dislike, that our brains trick us into believing is objective, an illusion of objectivity, but you'd have to be clear as to whether this is what you're trying to argue? 

But this is element alone distinguishes it from our likes or dislike of broccoli, were all of us are aware that its subjective, based on our personal taste, and not objectively good of bad. 

I mean, when you tell me the holocausts is wrong? Should i take it that, all you're really saying here, is that you don't like it? Sort of like if you were to tell me this dish tasted bad?