5 ms·
> Doing that which is good is moral, so if good is real then morals are real, unless you're a non-cognitivist. Yep, but that's not a biconditional. If morals a
by dvt 10y ago
> Doing that which is good is moral, so if good is real then morals are real, unless you're a non-cognitivist.
Yep, but that's not a biconditional. If morals are real, that doesn't necessarily mean good is real.
> It's not nonsense in the sense that evolution can explain our predilection for developing moral beliefs, but the idea that this fact then disproves moral realism is dubious.
Dawkins doesn't believe evolution merely explains our predilection for developing moral beliefs, he believes morality is driven by certain evolutionary processes. For example, anti-social behavior (e.g. going on a murdering spree) might be "immoral" because it hurts the population as a whole (thereby hurting its propagation), or something along those lines. I think that's a very reductive position, and although analytically satisfying, it doesn't quite capture the intuitive meaning of "good" and "bad".
- naasking 10y ago> Yep, but that's not a biconditional. If morals are real, that doesn't necessarily mean good is real. I don't see how you can think that. What's an example of a world with objective morality but no objective good? > I think that's a very reductive position, and although analytically satisfying, it doesn't quite capture the intuitive meaning of "good" and "bad". Evolutionary game theory ethics is what it's called. But yes, while it can explain natural facts about what we think is good and bad, it can't explain moral facts like what actually is good and bad. I highly recommend you read the paper I linked, because it covers a lot of ground and plenty of common objections against moral realism, even if you decide to stick with theism in the end.
- dvt 10y ago> I don't see how you can think that. What's an example of a world with objective morality but no objective good? If, for example, I use minimizing pain as my moral barometer (this is utilitarianism), I believe in an objective morality without believing in an objective good. I'm not going to punch Jimmy because hurting him that wouldn't be in line with minimizing pain and not because it would be "bad" to do so.
- naasking 10y agoA utilitarian ethics, by definition, is about maximizing or minimizing something. If "pain" is that something, then "pain" is the bad and "not pain" is the good.