My personal view on how to work with ethics as described in ethical philosophy terminology is basically a moral anti-realist version of ethical naturalism: I think the constraints of things like evolutionary psychology and sociology give us a lot of guidelines, in the context of a specific species (humans), society, and set of technological capabilities, so I’m a moral relativist, and that designing an ethical system that suits these guidelines well is exacting work. I just don’t think that they’re sufficient to uniquely define a single answer, so I don’t agree with the common moral-realist formulation of ethical naturalism. Perhaps I should start calling myself a moral semi-realist, and see how many philosophers I can confuse?
My personal view on how to work with ethics as described in ethical philosophy terminology is basically a moral anti-realist version of ethical naturalism: I think the constraints of things like evolutionary psychology and sociology give us a lot of guidelines, in the context of a specific species (humans), society, and set of technological capabilities, so I’m a moral relativist, and that designing an ethical system that suits these guidelines well is exacting work. I just don’t think that they’re sufficient to uniquely define a single answer, so I don’t agree with the common moral-realist formulation of ethical naturalism. Perhaps I should start calling myself a moral semi-realist, and see how many philosophers I can confuse?