Liberte wrote "
I have never denied that people have a complex of signaling, emotional and associational cues that they are apt to give the name ‘morality’. What I do deny is that these have any philosophical significance, since they have no cognitive content. How and whether one’s moral sentiments are adjusted or affected by actual knowledge of the sciences is totally beside the point, like whether one’s feelings about banks are affected by knowledge of economics.
Morality is, to its core, nothing more than a game of self-advancement and manipulating the psycho-emotional states of others through complex rationalizations and signals. Whatever that’s worth, it is certainly not philosophy any more than seduction is."
(the quote function is not working properly)
Liberte - have you read Ayer’s views on ethics, aesthetics and theology? They seem to mirror your views exactly, with which I agree wholeheartedly. You may also be interested in a previous post of mine which roughly illustrates my thoughts of moral realism being based on a confusion of language:
You may also be interested in the following conversation between lilburne and myself regarding the psychology of moral sentiment (lilburne’s responses are quoted):
Let me know what you think