Look up ethical naturalism, or specifically teleological ethical naturalism. It debunks the supposed is-ought fallacy. Oughts, moral statements, or good and bad, are descriptive when in relation to goals. Thing A is good for accomplishing goal X. Thing B is bad for accomplishing goal Y. Any other absolute sense of the words good and bad are nonsense. Things are only good/bad in relation to specific goals. Opposing goals will label the same action as opposites in terms of good and bad. From here, we can say that individuals have goals such as our biological drive to live prosperously (which requires living in a society in harmony with others in order to take advantage of the division of labour) and satisfying our biological sense of empathy (which is unique to everyone, and is the main differentiator between the ethics of individuals). This emotion component is where emotivism comes from. In order to fulfill the goal is living prosperously, we form societies, which forces us to give up some of what we desire in order to live with each other harmoniously. This giving up of desires in order to receive benefits is what constitutes the social contract, and is what forms the "morals" of that culture. And because this social contract is made between individuals, different sets of individuals will arrive at different social contracts and cultures. So this is where cultural moral relativism stems from. But the base of everything is that goal-centric view of good and bad, because it defines an unambiguous and undeniable foundation for ethics based on strict definitions of words, which allows us to exactly see how ethics gets built from that.
Why do we need to teach kids to use the toilet, eat with a spoon? Because it's beneficial to our society, same with being a somewhat ethical/moral person. Just because something is objectively good does not mean it has to be an innate trait from birth.
@@damienbreaux5079 Moral objectivity implies that one should have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong; otherwise, where else would morality be contained?
Look up ethical naturalism, or specifically teleological ethical naturalism. It debunks the supposed is-ought fallacy. Oughts, moral statements, or good and bad, are descriptive when in relation to goals. Thing A is good for accomplishing goal X. Thing B is bad for accomplishing goal Y. Any other absolute sense of the words good and bad are nonsense. Things are only good/bad in relation to specific goals. Opposing goals will label the same action as opposites in terms of good and bad. From here, we can say that individuals have goals such as our biological drive to live prosperously (which requires living in a society in harmony with others in order to take advantage of the division of labour) and satisfying our biological sense of empathy (which is unique to everyone, and is the main differentiator between the ethics of individuals). This emotion component is where emotivism comes from. In order to fulfill the goal is living prosperously, we form societies, which forces us to give up some of what we desire in order to live with each other harmoniously. This giving up of desires in order to receive benefits is what constitutes the social contract, and is what forms the "morals" of that culture. And because this social contract is made between individuals, different sets of individuals will arrive at different social contracts and cultures. So this is where cultural moral relativism stems from. But the base of everything is that goal-centric view of good and bad, because it defines an unambiguous and undeniable foundation for ethics based on strict definitions of words, which allows us to exactly see how ethics gets built from that.
If morals were objective, why do we need to teach little kids that sharing is caring?
Why do we need to teach kids to use the toilet, eat with a spoon? Because it's beneficial to our society, same with being a somewhat ethical/moral person. Just because something is objectively good does not mean it has to be an innate trait from birth.
@@damienbreaux5079 Moral objectivity implies that one should have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong; otherwise, where else would morality be contained?
Me when I’m gay
Me when I'm gay and also have a small penis
So proud of you for coming out babes
@@emiloguechoons9030thank u