Has your position on this remained the same over the intervening years? — Leontiskos
Sure, but are moral facts the sort of facts that can lead to measurable consequences if we act in light of false moral beliefs? For example, if I falsely believe that killing babies is (im)moral then what sort of outcome could I expect?
[...]
Is there any empirical difference between a world in which killing babies is moral and a world in which killing babies is immoral? If you found out that killing babies is moral then would you kill babies, or would you act immorally and not kill babies? — Michael
World 3 would would pretty quickly stop being a world. With no morality there is more of a chance people would kill babies but maybe not to the extent that the species would cease to exist. — I like sushi
I'd say that the consequences of false moral belief will depend on the moral system in question. For example, if a consequentialist holds that killing babies is evil on account of inflicting pain, then the possible world in which the killing of babies is permissible would be a world where babies feel no pain (or where one can kill painlessly). For this consequentialist, the negative consequence of false belief is an increase in pain, or unnecessary pain, or the pain of innocents, or something like that. — Leontiskos
Perhaps a more suitable question for the consequentialist is to explain the difference between these worlds:
1. Causing pain has no moral value
2. Causing pain is morally good
3. Causing pain is morally bad
A possible response is that "causing pain is morally bad" is true by definition, and so (1) and (2) are not possible worlds, but the question stands for any consequentialist who doesn't think consequentialism true by definition. — Michael
To make it simple. Explain to me the difference between these possible worlds:
1. No morality.
2. It is immoral to kill babies.
3. It is moral to kill babies. — Michael
1. In a world without morality, folk would kill babies if they wanted to and not if they didn't want to. There would be no law against it or moral opprobrium attached to it. — unenlightened
In a world without moral beliefs this would happen, but I'm not asking about moral beliefs. I clarified that above: — Michael
This does not demonstrate that it has no shape. — unenlightened
I think such a consequentialist would say that (3) is self-evidently true, because to feel pain is to suffer; suffering is undesirable; and what is undesirable should—ceteris paribus—be avoided. "Suffering ought to be sought" is a sort of synthetic contradiction. — Leontiskos
I'm not trying to demonstrate that there are no moral facts, only that moral facts don't matter. It is only our beliefs that matter. — Michael
Does the shape of the world not matter? — unenlightened
"Unlike other kinds of beliefs, our moral beliefs being right or wrong has no practical consequences." — Michael
"Unlike other kinds of beliefs, our moral beliefs being right or wrong has no practical consequences." — Michael
You could have it that rule-based morality represents wisdom about what worked best for our forebears. Since cultures evolve, what works changes over time. In one era, greed is destructive, in another, it's constructive. In this way, you could have a kind of moral realism, it's just that the rules are in flux. The basis for the rules is always the same, though: cultural evolution. — frank
For example if we all believe it is wrong to kill babies, but we are wrong about that, then there will be more living babies than there ought to be, and hence population overshoot environmental catastrophe, and eventual population crash. — unenlightened
Is the belief that homosexuality is sinful a moral belief?
— Joshs
Yes. — Michael
And there are no practical consequences to changing one’s view from ‘it is true that homosexuality is sinful’ to ‘it is false that homosexuality is sinful’? Let’s say the person who has a change of heart is a legislator or a parent of a homosexual child. — Joshs
Whether our belief that we ought not kill babies is true or false has no practical consequences. — Michael
Later, we notice that our numbers are dwindling, and there is no one left to change our nappies when we become incontinent. — unenlightened
By my reckoning we could replace moral facts with empirical facts and end up in the same quandary. — Joshs
They’re not equivalent. The world being round or the world being flat has practical consequences.
There hasn’t been explained what the practical consequences are of homosexuality being moral or homosexuality being immoral — Michael
What does this have to do with the truth or falsity of "one ought not kill babies"? — Michael
I cannot help you beyond pointing out that moral beliefs are efficacious, and some are life affirming and others life denying. — unenlightened
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.