In my previous post I described Error Theory and used Richard Joyce’s arguments to explain that our morality sense includes supernatural seeming notions such as the existence of a ‘moral equilibrium’ or ‘moral facts’ in the world that exist as inescapable demands by an outside authority.

This does not sit well with many a moral atheist, so several attempts to ‘explain morality’ via a naturalistic explanation have been attempted. The primary approach is to use biological evolution as a means of vindicating morality as naturalistic. Specifically, why can’t we use the fact that evolution produced morality as some sort of naturalistic vindication of our feelings of moralities objective rality and profound importance? This is the idea that Joyce now makes short work of. Continue reading →

Note: This is a long post. As with any post like this, I will initially just present the point of view without any criticism to it. But I think it’s a topic that is of potential interest in a backhanded sort of way.

In my previous posts on “what is morality?” I went over the many difficulties of trying to define morality. We found that we do not view morality as:

• Subjective or a personal preference
• Purely utilitarian
• Solely about happiness, well-being, or non-suffering
• A personal construct, nor a societal one

My final conclusion was that morality was something that had to be accepted on faith. Continue reading →