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 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.