>>>"But I don't get how that is outside the moral-system paradigm. It may be a natural or instinctive or essential moral system but it's still a moral system." <<<
A living tree uses water, it has moisture throughout its biological system. A tree, however, is not H2O. H2O in the purest form is also just called water. Water is a physical substance but many systems incorporate water to succeed. Most people who look at a pond would call it a body of water. Biologists know an established pond is much more complicated.
Moral systems, although abstract unlike the water analogy, use the ideas of morality to establish a practical application. The practical application is not the alpha thing, just like your check book ledger is not math, it is an application of math.
>>>"We humans are sentimental and much of what we think of as wrong is a misleading visceral reaction."<<< and so we often get it wrong or maybe just not quite good enough. which does not make morality flawed, only our applications. When we recognize it's not quite good enough we are referencing the ether concept of what it could be and try to get closer.
>>>"Now, disgust is a factor in Haidt's moral foundation theory, the "sanctity" one, but, like sentimentality, it can be misleading. Something disgusting is not necessarily immoral by any rational standard."<<<
I am familiar with Haidt's teachings. I like Haidt. |
