Morality is partly objective. It is hardwired into our brains in terms of aversion to death and the suffering of others, all else being equal. Anyone will slow down if a dog crosses the road, unless it is an emergency.
In metaethics, “objective” is often another way of saying that moral claims are made true by something other than stances. Even if an aversion to death were hardwired into our brains, this would not entail that morality is objective in the relevant sense of the term as it is used in metaethics.
I suppose we have interpreted the question in slightly different dimensions. I don’t think it is a question of position. The existence of morality is an objective fact about people.
The existence of morality certainly is an objective fact about people: it’s an objective fact that people have moral values, make moral judgments, and so on. But that’s not with the dispute between moral realists and antirealists is about.
GPT: “The debate between moral realists and antirealists concerns whether moral facts exist objectively (independently of opinions and feelings). Realists think they do, antirealists think they do not.”
No part of reality is inherently good or bad. But our consciousness is the vanguard of matter. We are the only possible way for our part of the universe to perceive anything at all. The human mechanism of categorization is the only one available in our corner of the universe. Humans are moral, and so in the observable cosmos, what is bad is what humans are wired to think is bad.
Morality is partly objective. It is hardwired into our brains in terms of aversion to death and the suffering of others, all else being equal. Anyone will slow down if a dog crosses the road, unless it is an emergency.
In metaethics, “objective” is often another way of saying that moral claims are made true by something other than stances. Even if an aversion to death were hardwired into our brains, this would not entail that morality is objective in the relevant sense of the term as it is used in metaethics.
I suppose we have interpreted the question in slightly different dimensions. I don’t think it is a question of position. The existence of morality is an objective fact about people.
The existence of morality certainly is an objective fact about people: it’s an objective fact that people have moral values, make moral judgments, and so on. But that’s not with the dispute between moral realists and antirealists is about.
GPT: “The debate between moral realists and antirealists concerns whether moral facts exist objectively (independently of opinions and feelings). Realists think they do, antirealists think they do not.”
No part of reality is inherently good or bad. But our consciousness is the vanguard of matter. We are the only possible way for our part of the universe to perceive anything at all. The human mechanism of categorization is the only one available in our corner of the universe. Humans are moral, and so in the observable cosmos, what is bad is what humans are wired to think is bad.