I vote for Jonathan Haidt, because he describes moral as inherently contradictory. If I have understood Haidt right, it is not possible to follow all types of moral at once. That explains why all attempts at finding the perfect super-moral fail.
That's interesting; so you are explaining the observation that attempts to form cohesive single moral systems haven't worked by saying that morality is, by its essence, multifaceted. But isn't moral nihilism a simpler explanation that we should prefer by Occam's razor?
"Trying to pin down morality is difficult."
"That's because morality is complex and even contradictory."
"No, it's just because morality doesn't really exist."
I think that Jonathan Haidt made an ingenius move and transferred morality from philosophy to psychology. Thereby he also answered the question whether morality exist or not: obviously humans are creatures that think in terms of morality.
I vote for Jonathan Haidt, because he describes moral as inherently contradictory. If I have understood Haidt right, it is not possible to follow all types of moral at once. That explains why all attempts at finding the perfect super-moral fail.
That's interesting; so you are explaining the observation that attempts to form cohesive single moral systems haven't worked by saying that morality is, by its essence, multifaceted. But isn't moral nihilism a simpler explanation that we should prefer by Occam's razor?
"Trying to pin down morality is difficult."
"That's because morality is complex and even contradictory."
"No, it's just because morality doesn't really exist."
I think that Jonathan Haidt made an ingenius move and transferred morality from philosophy to psychology. Thereby he also answered the question whether morality exist or not: obviously humans are creatures that think in terms of morality.