Recently several arguments have been offered as scientific grounds for such strong pessimism about moral reasoning. I will focus here on two of the most significant. First, it is claimed that the function of the brain is advocacy rather than discovery; the idea is that evolution built the brain to win arguments rather than to find truth. Second, some hold that moral reasoning is fraudulent because we typically engage in it when a moral judgment has already been made on other grounds, primarily emotional ones. Such reasoning amounts to no more than a search for arguments for a pre-established conclusion. In this view, what passes for moral reasoning is really post hoc rationalization.
David Hume (1711-1776) maintained that our goals in life are set by our 'passions', that is emotions, and the role of reason is to help us achieve our goals. It seems to me that the role of 'civilization' has been to control and direct our emotions by means of our reason. The argument about whether moral judgements are derived from absolutes or are relative is another field.
David Hume (1711-1776) maintained that our goals in life are set by our 'passions', that is emotions, and the role of reason is to help us achieve our goals. It seems to me that the role of 'civilization' has been to control and direct our emotions by means of our reason. The argument about whether moral judgements are derived from absolutes or are relative is another field.
This question doesn't make sense. Morals are not binary, threre is black, white and grey.