I understand the concern that moral facts might seem metaphysically strange, but I don’t think they are any stranger than logical or modal truths.
Not a Philosophy major, so you’ll have to put up with my lack of knowledge, but I think I’d say that logical truths are contingent on the axioms being true, which is determined by how well they seem to match the world and our perceptions of it in the first place. And there are alternatives to classical logic that are ‘as true’ and generate logical truths as valid as those of classical logic. Not sure about modal truths -it is not something I’ve read about yet-. To the extent I grasp them, they appear constructed or definitional, not absolute, i.e.:
“A square cannot be round.” → because of how you define a square
It is possible that life exists on other planets.” → the question is about probabilities
“Necessarily, 2 + 2 = 4.” → Only if Peano Axioms and ZFC is assumed
I’m curious how anti-realists would approach serious moral disagreements, such as those involving human rights abuses, without appealing to something deeper than social consensus or personal feeling. Can we say “this is wrong” in any meaningful way if morality is only expressive or constructed?
Can’t speak for others, but can for myself. I’d say that first, some preferences are widely agreed upon to begin with (at least in liberal, Western societies). When there’s a conflict, we have the framework of societal rules and norms to solve it, and which we accept as the best scenario for maximizing our individual well-being, even if it comes with some trade-offs at times. If there’s a serious disagreement between my preferences and those encoded in the rules, norms and contracts, I try to change those through the appropriate channels. If I fail and ii is something non-negotiable to me, I would have to leave my society and go to another that is better attuned to me.
Not a Philosophy major, so you’ll have to put up with my lack of knowledge, but I think I’d say that logical truths are contingent on the axioms being true, which is determined by how well they seem to match the world and our perceptions of it in the first place. And there are alternatives to classical logic that are ‘as true’ and generate logical truths as valid as those of classical logic. Not sure about modal truths -it is not something I’ve read about yet-. To the extent I grasp them, they appear constructed or definitional, not absolute, i.e.:
“A square cannot be round.” → because of how you define a square
It is possible that life exists on other planets.” → the question is about probabilities
“Necessarily, 2 + 2 = 4.” → Only if Peano Axioms and ZFC is assumed
Can’t speak for others, but can for myself. I’d say that first, some preferences are widely agreed upon to begin with (at least in liberal, Western societies). When there’s a conflict, we have the framework of societal rules and norms to solve it, and which we accept as the best scenario for maximizing our individual well-being, even if it comes with some trade-offs at times. If there’s a serious disagreement between my preferences and those encoded in the rules, norms and contracts, I try to change those through the appropriate channels. If I fail and ii is something non-negotiable to me, I would have to leave my society and go to another that is better attuned to me.