Were you expressing that you accept a naturalistic version of moral realism, or simply that you have a preference for people to align more with these drives of human nature?
Both. I think we have a rough framework of morals embedded in our nature and acquired through evolution. We've acquired these morals because it benefits us to do so. Everyone's moral framework, although similar, is not identical, and some people have distorted or deformed morals either on account of biological defect or external distorting influences. Therefore while people have basic morals by nature, society has to put up guardrails to create a greater degree of moral conformity if we're to get along well enough to form a group capable of cooperating in competition with other groups, and to isolate and remove moral rejects. I have a preference that people in my own society align with human nature because it is beneficial to my society and thus myself for us to do so.
@natureandthenation Ah okay thanks for the response. One of the biggest problems I take with naturalist accounts of moral realism is that the facts they end up identifying with strike me as descriptive facts. They are not prescriptive nor irreducibly normative. They just seem to be describing judgement patterns, or linguistic practices of a particular group. A moral anti-realist like myself can agree with your descriptive facts, and those facts could even inform my decisions, but they don't tell me what I should do independent of my values. There are various accounts that non-natural moral realists try to give in regards to the prescriptive aspect, but I find them incoherent. Whereas I find the naturalist accounts trivial, and I reject using their terminology. I don't see any facts that the moral reject is necessarily incorrect about on the view.
Were you expressing that you accept a naturalistic version of moral realism, or simply that you have a preference for people to align more with these drives of human nature?
Both. I think we have a rough framework of morals embedded in our nature and acquired through evolution. We've acquired these morals because it benefits us to do so. Everyone's moral framework, although similar, is not identical, and some people have distorted or deformed morals either on account of biological defect or external distorting influences. Therefore while people have basic morals by nature, society has to put up guardrails to create a greater degree of moral conformity if we're to get along well enough to form a group capable of cooperating in competition with other groups, and to isolate and remove moral rejects. I have a preference that people in my own society align with human nature because it is beneficial to my society and thus myself for us to do so.
@natureandthenation Ah okay thanks for the response. One of the biggest problems I take with naturalist accounts of moral realism is that the facts they end up identifying with strike me as descriptive facts. They are not prescriptive nor irreducibly normative. They just seem to be describing judgement patterns, or linguistic practices of a particular group. A moral anti-realist like myself can agree with your descriptive facts, and those facts could even inform my decisions, but they don't tell me what I should do independent of my values. There are various accounts that non-natural moral realists try to give in regards to the prescriptive aspect, but I find them incoherent. Whereas I find the naturalist accounts trivial, and I reject using their terminology. I don't see any facts that the moral reject is necessarily incorrect about on the view.
cicho bo przyjdzie zdzicho