RE: In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order
August 23, 2019 at 2:26 pm
(This post was last modified: August 23, 2019 at 2:27 pm by Acrobat.)
(August 23, 2019 at 2:03 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: OFC people think that their moral proclamations are “objectively true”, Acro. In the sense that you’re using the term the two words are redundant.
Thing is, that doesn’t get us anywhere as realists. Even if we uttered some moral proclamation that wasn’t true, our belief in its truth lead to its utterance or conception in the first place. If we could rustle up agreement we may still be dealing with an example of inter-subjectivity.
This is error theory. The idea that we’re trying to get things right™, and it may even be possible to get things tight™, but for whatever reason we got them wrong.
What we wonder, when we wonder about moral truth, is whether or not those things we all consider objectively true ( which aren’t always in agreement) are synthetic or analytic truths.
As the title of the thread indicates, I am defending a non-natural moral order, a non-natural reality we could call The Good. That the reason we see objective goodness and badness, is a result of the light it casts on things. We see such light cast on things such as doing what beneficial to well being, and thats the reason we see it as good.
This non-natural reality, seems to make better sense of a variety of features of human morality, as to why goodness and badness when it comes to morality, appear to be of a different quality then when we speak of goodness and badness of our tastes and preferences, why we see it as objective, rather than our personal taste, or the taste and preferences of our particular society. It also helps to explain features like dumbfounding, and the sort of delusions, lies, deceptions common to those who defend or justify immoral things such as the holocaust. Why their psychology is similar to truth deniers, like holocausts deniers, more so than people with difference taste and preferences, core morality, guilt as some violation of some higher principle, etc...
It also accounts for why objective goodness and badness aren't reducible to natural facts (scientific and historical facts about x).
The point of the thread, is to contemplate any serious or meaningful objection to such a moral reality. If you're not offering something that is trying to negate this idea, than you're not really serving the purpose of the thread.
