Net utility to whom? Certainly not to the cow. Which entity, precisely, is acting as the objective gauge of what is just the “right” moral law? What if instead of a human and a cow it was two humans on the island, what does the correct moral law say about which one is supposed to cannibalize the other?
Moral realism doesn’t make sense because morals are just about what is good for which sentient entity. If there is no collective universal consciousness that experiences All Of The Utility at once, then there is no point in expecting there to be an objective moral code.
Natural laws aren’t just laws the way human laws are. If I exceed the speed of light I don’t get a speeding ticket. I don’t even go to Hell. I just physically can’t. Where’s the feedback of Nature for violations of the natural moral code? What should I empirically measure to test it?
Even if there was an entity such as a God, it might be wise to comply with its will, but we wouldn’t necessarily accept it as correct by definition. You can work out a full moral theory from an extremely small number of very simple axioms, yes. That’s IMO the more rational way of doing it: take a kernel of principles as small as possible, derive everything else as a coherent system using evidence. But you do need that kernel. There is no fundamental measurable rule about things even such as “life is better than death”. We just like it better that way.
Do “all parties” include bacteria? Ants? Plankton? How are they to be weighed?
If you’re a moral relativist, you’re free to weigh these issues however you like best and then simply motivate your choice. If you’re a moral realist you’re claiming that there are somewhere real laws and constants of the universe defining these problems precisely. How are we supposed to discover them?
It would include them, but they don’t matter because they’re not conscsious. I don’t think there is a law of the universe—the moral facts are necessary like mathematical, modal, or logical ones.
Even mathematics require axioms. What are your moral axioms? In what way are they self-evident?
Every instance of moral realism I’ve ever seen is just someone who has opinions like everyone else, but also wants to really stress that theirs are correct.
I think slaughter the cow, because you’re capable of producing more net utility—not sure I see the relevance.
Net utility to whom? Certainly not to the cow. Which entity, precisely, is acting as the objective gauge of what is just the “right” moral law? What if instead of a human and a cow it was two humans on the island, what does the correct moral law say about which one is supposed to cannibalize the other?
Moral realism doesn’t make sense because morals are just about what is good for which sentient entity. If there is no collective universal consciousness that experiences All Of The Utility at once, then there is no point in expecting there to be an objective moral code.
Natural laws aren’t just laws the way human laws are. If I exceed the speed of light I don’t get a speeding ticket. I don’t even go to Hell. I just physically can’t. Where’s the feedback of Nature for violations of the natural moral code? What should I empirically measure to test it?
Even if there was an entity such as a God, it might be wise to comply with its will, but we wouldn’t necessarily accept it as correct by definition. You can work out a full moral theory from an extremely small number of very simple axioms, yes. That’s IMO the more rational way of doing it: take a kernel of principles as small as possible, derive everything else as a coherent system using evidence. But you do need that kernel. There is no fundamental measurable rule about things even such as “life is better than death”. We just like it better that way.
I disagree with your claim about morals being just about prudence. Net utility looks at utility to all parties.
Do “all parties” include bacteria? Ants? Plankton? How are they to be weighed?
If you’re a moral relativist, you’re free to weigh these issues however you like best and then simply motivate your choice. If you’re a moral realist you’re claiming that there are somewhere real laws and constants of the universe defining these problems precisely. How are we supposed to discover them?
It would include them, but they don’t matter because they’re not conscsious. I don’t think there is a law of the universe—the moral facts are necessary like mathematical, modal, or logical ones.
Even mathematics require axioms. What are your moral axioms? In what way are they self-evident?
Every instance of moral realism I’ve ever seen is just someone who has opinions like everyone else, but also wants to really stress that theirs are correct.
I think utilitarianism is right, but even conditional on utilitarianism not being right, moral realism is true.