To what degree can morality be based on empirical fact?

[DANKTHRONE]

I used to think that all morality could be based on empirical evidence. I've since become more and more unsure of this and have more of a relativistic and moral antirealist view. I believed in empiricism at first because it solved the debate between deontology/utilitarianism/virtue ethics for me. However, if you believe in virtue ethics then you have to know what are virtues and what are not. Is there any way to make this judgement without presupposing anything about what is or isn't a virtue? How should we empirically decide what the virtues are? I still don't know what to make of metaethical moral relativism. It solves some problems but comes with its own. shyt it so confusing.

 

[nineteeneightysix]

Nature has NO moral values...

Therefore, there is absolutely zero empirical basis of any moral, ethical or virtuous code of man...

Everything comes down to power (real or perceived)...

 

[bigDeeOT]

A lot of those terms are above my level. All I gotta say is I live my life based on the golden rule. That works pretty well for me.

But it sounds like what you're saying falls in line with what Sam Harris says about morality.

 

[CrimsonTider]

Dumb this shyt down bruh