I love how you’re working through these tricky questions. If I read you correctly, you are assuming that there is one true morality, we just don’t know what it is (uncertainty in the map rather than in the territory, you could say). Would be great if you wrote about what grounds the one true morality about which we lack certainty, i.e., where does it come from? (If you have, sorry for not being familiar with that post of yours.)
Thanks for commenting. I haven’t written about anything like that because my thoughts about it are rudimentary at best! I think you’re correct that these speculations are premised on some sort of moral realism (if I understand you correctly). To be clear, I really don’t know whether moral realism or anti-realism is more plausible. Just from a very shallow knowledge of metaethics, i think something like constructivism seems most plausible to me, but I’m not sure about how that maps onto the realism/anti-realism question.
I love how you’re working through these tricky questions. If I read you correctly, you are assuming that there is one true morality, we just don’t know what it is (uncertainty in the map rather than in the territory, you could say). Would be great if you wrote about what grounds the one true morality about which we lack certainty, i.e., where does it come from? (If you have, sorry for not being familiar with that post of yours.)
Thanks for commenting. I haven’t written about anything like that because my thoughts about it are rudimentary at best! I think you’re correct that these speculations are premised on some sort of moral realism (if I understand you correctly). To be clear, I really don’t know whether moral realism or anti-realism is more plausible. Just from a very shallow knowledge of metaethics, i think something like constructivism seems most plausible to me, but I’m not sure about how that maps onto the realism/anti-realism question.