| | The moral zeitgeist is thus compatible with [[moral realism]]. Atheist and secular humanist Richard Carrier, a defender of moral realism, writes | | The moral zeitgeist is thus compatible with [[moral realism]]. Atheist and secular humanist Richard Carrier, a defender of moral realism, writes |
| − | "Thus we can explain all moral controversy and progress. For when we try to argue that someone is wrong about a moral proposition we always find ourselves arguing in either of two ways: either we point out how their understanding of the facts is wrong, or we point out how they have deduced the incorrect values from the actual facts. Both can be valid arguments. For instance, we tell the Nazi that his beliefs, like that Jews are not human beings and that they are plotting to take over the world, are factually false, and therefore his morals regarding the Jews are in error" | + | "Thus we can explain all moral controversy and progress. For when we try to argue that someone is wrong about a moral proposition we always find ourselves arguing in either of two ways: either we point out how their understanding of the facts is wrong, or we point out how they have deduced the incorrect values from the actual facts. Both can be valid arguments. For instance, we tell the Nazi that his beliefs, like that Jews are not human beings and that they are plotting to take over the world, are factually false, and therefore his morals regarding the Jews are in error"<ref> Carrier, Richard, "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, AuthorHouse, 2005</ref> |