Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 7:18 am
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:16 pm
I acknowledge it. Moral non-realists/non-objectivists can do good and bad things just as much as moral realists/objectivists.
But I think what matters is being rational and good, so that the fewer reasons we have for being irrational and wicked, the better.
Abortion is wicked. Human trafficking is wicked. The overall indifference the West has toward both is wicked. I could generate a long list of wicked things, all rooted in moral non-realism, a list that would rival a list you might compile of wickedness done out of a belief in moral fact.
Again: it's naive to believe rationality naturally bends toward the
good.
Your claim that abortion is a wicked consequence of moral non-realism is a nice example of thinking a moral opinion is a fact. But there are moral realists who think abortion is not immoral, because a woman's reproductive autonomy and agency has to be paramount - so that forcing her to carry a preganancy to term is morally wrong. Abortion can be just as much a consequence of moral realism.
Rationality does not guarantee moral goodness. But is that an argument for the irrationality of moral objectivism?
As usual your thinking as above is too shallow and narrow.
First an effective Moral Framework and System must be established.
The justified True Moral Fact regarding abortion from the Moral FSK is'
"no child-bearing human ought to have an abortion" period!!
But this is merely a GUIDE as a moral standard.
The justification for the above moral fact is;
-all humans are "programmed" for the reproduction of children to contribute to the next generation to ensure the preservation of the human species.
-if abortion is permitted, moral-wise this is open to all humans universally.
-with this unrestrained option, the human species could 'theoretically' be extinct in time, if every potential child is aborted.
-therefore the moral fact, conditioned upon the Moral FSK is;
"no child-bearing human ought to have an abortion" period!!
But note the above moral facts as a standard is merely a standard only.
There should not be any enforcement of the above 'policy'.
Since the above is only a standard, there is still room for abortion to be carried out but it is always constraint by the moral fact and standard.
Because there is a ceiling standard, this will enable humanity to resolve the problem of abortion at its roots causes and only allow abortion in justifiable unavoidable situations.
Without a justified moral fact of 'Abortion is not permissible' [period!!] there will no fixed goals and people will not be bothered to look at the root causes of abortion and its related problems, which is mainly due to uncontrollable lust and unmindful sex than other reasons.
Those who insist abortion is not immoral, thus do not adopt any standard guide for it are not empirical moral realists. Since options are given for one to decide whether to have an abortion or not, that would be moral relativism.
There are no moral facts, so moral objectivism is irrational. And it provides a reason for some people to be wicked with a clear conscience, because they think their moral opinions are facts. (At least, I've never come across an exception to this rule.)
I get this. And in this same light: believin' there is no moral reality (moral fact) most surely can lead a man to rationalize all manner of wickedness (license and banal atrocity).
Okay, what conclusion follows? Since goodness and wickedness can follow from both moral realism and moral non-realism, isn't it rational to ditch at least one mistaken belief: that there are moral facts? Are you advocating irrationality on utilitarian grounds - so that people can carry on justifying their wickedness by pretending their are moral facts? What kind of utility is that?
Yes, moral non-realists and non-objectivists can do bad things. Is pretending there are moral facts the solution?
In the case of empirical moral realism, the only output from the system is good [defined as justified] and never evil.
Whatever moral facts from the Moral FSK they have to be justified to be good [as defined] and never evil.
If people acted evil against the good maxims of the Moral FSK, the fault lies in the evil-laden people.
However an essential features of the Moral FSK is that it must have a "control system" to manage the evil inclined to be good [moral objectives] via fool proof self-development programs that are adopted voluntarily by the moral agents.
