Where do the morals of the left come from?

                

  

Morals are not facts, they are sentiments, or opinions. So those who preach from a moral high ground, those  who justify their actions by a moral yardstick are just evincing their opinions

When one enquires where do these 'human' morals come from?


 A familiar and widely accepted answer is that human morals are in essence, despite their modern variations, Darwinian adaptations.


As such morals are about survival and reproduction and have nothing to do with moral truth.


Moreover, while the intuitive, emotional basis of moral judgments was useful to our ancestors, this basis is out-dated and unreliable in modern industrial society and thus current leftist moral thought in such society, which inevitably embeds this basis, is without rational foundation.




Liberals still yearning for the metaphysical excuse their actions under a moral framework. yet morals do not exist they are not facts, things, essences, they are sentiments.


Some moral skeptics argue that Darwinian explanations of the origins and persistence of morals among humans undermine the likelihood that moral beliefs are true and hence undermine the possibility of moral knowledge.


Think of the immigration question and the dance of the left as if under the influence of the vapours,with their moral certainty that supposedly undergirds moral views.  Morals are not a fact they are human sentiments, and essentially Darwinian

What of the Psychological?

Moral judgments are intrinsically motivating that is why the left leap to the bait


Judgments about matters of fact, on the other hand, are never motivating just in themselves. Since to constitute moral knowledge a moral judgment must be made about some moral fact, moral knowledge is not possible.

To look at morals epistemically
relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation.
Moral knowledge is about moral reality. How is that reality constituted? Three general possibilities present themselves. (a) Moral reality might be theological in nature, pertaining to (say) the will of God. (b) It might be a non-natural realm that is neither theological nor natural, but sui generis. (self generating)  (c) It might be comprehensible as a part of the natural world studied by science. Each of these possibilities, however, is beset with difficulties, and no viable fourth alternative has been conceived

By understanding moral knowledge as mainly a matter of knowing how to live well interdependently with others by resolving issues collectively as they arise, this methodology may not offer a conception of moral truth appropriate to genuine moral knowledge

One could go on, but the finger wagging censoriousness of the left is upon examination no more than pseudo morals that do not stand up to examination,  Whether morals are advocated as a code for our behaviour, a justification, so we are left with morals that are not facts or things, but opinions and sentiments.

Moral realism is the view that there are moral statements that are meaningful and true, and true independent of your opinion or culture. That means one must be able to ontologically ground the existence of moral facts, and in things other than popular opinions or merely cultural facts. When I say they "exist" I have to explain what I mean by that: in what sense, and in what way, do they "exist," particularly as I am a first-order physicalist (I believe everything that exists is solely and entirely caused by physical things and events: see so one must be able to reduce moral facts to physical facts in some way.