ultimately subjective, for whose reason are we speaking of? And human reason, limited as it is, cannot construct moral laws — Modern Conviviality
I've never understood why morality is the kind of thing that needs a ground or foundation. — fdrake
And if we already have the capacity to evaluate ethical decisions, to live ethically, can it be said that a grounding moral theory provides anything more than a set of heuristics to judge how to act and how to live in the abstract? — fdrake
Asking why something's right or wrong doesn't require believing in the necessary existence of a sufficient justification, only that to satisfy the questioner there will be a sufficiently persuasive justification for them. If someone could not possibly be convinced by any explanation they're playing a different game than 'explain to me why this is right (or wrong)'. — fdrake
Humans have the capacity to make moral judgments. These judgments are rooted in empathy, the feeling invoked when considering the condition of others. We don't have to be taught that it's"wrong" to cause another pain and suffering; we literally feel it to be so - if we function properly (sociopaths do not function properly). That act x is wrong is a semantic description of our natural empathy-based sensation of wrongness. It is a properly basic belief, and not mere opinion because we have the belief innately. The belief/feeling is analyzable and seen to be consistent with the survival and thriving of our species. So the ontic fact to which the proposition "x is wrong" corresponds is: the ingrained empathetic feeling in conjunction with the objective benefit to the species of a proper moral judgment.This is an ontological, not an epistemological question about ethics. I am aware atheists can be very moral beings.
- This is a question for non-theists who hold to objectivity in ethics (moral realists) - e.g. it is always true that murdering someone for no reason is morally wrong, etc.
- Grounding morality in: evolution (naturalistic fallacy), sentiment (subjectivity), or human reason (ultimately subjective, for whose reason are we speaking of? And human reason, limited as it is, cannot construct moral laws) seems incoherent. Short of Platonism, are these all the options a non-theist has at his disposal? — Modern Conviviality
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.