In passing, I might mention that I think that the fact that moral debates are not one-sided indicates that moral realism is false, since if moral realism were true, moral facts should provide us with one-sided evidence on moral questions
Situations where “moral facts provide us with one-sided evidence” don’t usually lead to moral debates. “Under ordinary circumstances, it’s wrong to shoplift a candy bar from a convenience store” isn’t particularly controversial.
I’m not saying that there are no uncontroversial moral issues. I’m saying that even moral positions that are wrong usually have something that tells in favour of them. This contrasts with the situation in science where outdated scientific theories (such as Aristotelian physics) no longer has any evidence that tells in its favour (that can’t be explained away).
I’m not saying that it is impossible to find moral questions that are one-sided. What I am saying is that this is an uncommon pattern, and that this contrasts with the situation in science. My hypothesis is that the cause of this difference is that in science the evidence have a “common cause”-structure—they are all caused by the fact which they indicate—whereas in morality we have not—moral facts do not cause their evidence, or the arguments for them. This in turn indicates that there is no independent moral reality.
Situations where “moral facts provide us with one-sided evidence” don’t usually lead to moral debates. “Under ordinary circumstances, it’s wrong to shoplift a candy bar from a convenience store” isn’t particularly controversial.
I’m not saying that there are no uncontroversial moral issues. I’m saying that even moral positions that are wrong usually have something that tells in favour of them. This contrasts with the situation in science where outdated scientific theories (such as Aristotelian physics) no longer has any evidence that tells in its favour (that can’t be explained away).
I’m not saying that it is impossible to find moral questions that are one-sided. What I am saying is that this is an uncommon pattern, and that this contrasts with the situation in science. My hypothesis is that the cause of this difference is that in science the evidence have a “common cause”-structure—they are all caused by the fact which they indicate—whereas in morality we have not—moral facts do not cause their evidence, or the arguments for them. This in turn indicates that there is no independent moral reality.
I think that a lot of anarchists could present pretty substantial cases against that, actually.
Yes, and there also a lot of crackpots willing to present cases against physical positions that should be uncontroversial.