Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_itc9d28 wrote on October 22, 2022 at 3:20 PM

Reply to comment by mytwocentsshowmanyss in Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3

A reasonable question.

Short answer: many people think that morals are either relativistic (different cultures, different moralities) or absolutist (everyone should have the same morals). Both positions lead people to be very confused.

The relativistic position seems to say that there is nothing that people from outside a culture can say to disagree about a cultural practice. Slavery is right if the culture thinks its right. Imperialism is right if the culture thinks its right. And so on.

On the other hand, absolutism seems to be problematic, too. Where are these moral truths written? Who has the moral truth?

This confusion bothers many. If it does not bother you, that's fine. But it has bothered me. Some are so puzzled that they conclude that morality and ethics must be groundless fictions, and so, they end up nihilistic. Nothing matters, and all that.

Kitcher tris to offer a middle ground. His position tries to make sense of ethics in a way that does not presume some realm of absolute moral truths. It is not as mysterious as absolutism. It also assumes that what a good life looks life will differ based on the cultural situation you find yourself in. But nevertheless, morals are not just fashions of the culture. They are tools. And like any tool, they can be evaluated based on how well they do their job.

Not saying that you should find this interesting. But hopefully, this can illuminate why some of us do find it so.