In this brief paper, I present some basic arguments for why insights in moral psychology, especially the work of Jonathan Haidt and others in Moral Foundations Theory, points towards a resolution of long-standing meta-ethical questions.

In this paper, I argue that morality, like theism, is a framework for ordering observations. I demonstrate that morality is a court framework, using the three category-pairs common to a court system. I then ask which observations this framework is ordering. I consider three theories: 1) individual preferences, 2) social norms, 3) a society’s relation to its environment. I demonstrate that the latter is the best fit, and that it makes sense that prehistoric societies would attempt to apply a court (...) framework to their environments, given their theistic beliefs. I provide some examples for further illustration. -/- I then argue that having determined what morality is trying to describe, we can ask whether it is the best method for doing so, given our current knowledge of the world, and that the answer is no. As an example, I demonstrate how a functional framework provides a much better explanation for the failures of communism than a moral framework. After that, I argue that a functional framework, this time based on evolutionary theory, is able to solve persistent problems in moral philosophy. I then address three possible objections to my theory, most notably the ‘naturalistic fallacy’, arguing that this fallacy is widely misunderstood and does not apply to morality, but rather to agency, which is a separate issue. I end with a definition of amoralism and explain why I use the term for myself. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that David Hume's is-ought problem stems from morality as a simplifying framework. Morality is the attempt to describe human behaviour and its relation to nature through a court framework, dating to prehistoric times. Such a court does not really exist, hence we are not referring to anything directly when we make moral statements, and therefore 'is' and 'ought' do not align. The solution is to replace morality with what it's really trying to describe: patterns in (...) individual behaviour. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that morality is a simplifying framework for describing human behaviour and its relation to nature, based on the analogy of a human court, and that the correct framework is functional, informed by evolutionary theory. Because of this, morality breaks down when extended beyond everyday situations, and this has led to severely negative consequences in some situations where it has been used as a guide for large-scale societal change. It also blocks progress in the social sciences (...) by effectively treating a set of descriptions as unchallengeable. I argue that as human models of the world improve, morality will be replaced by functional descriptions, just as theism has been. This will have significant implications for all major areas of society, including culture, government, and science. (shrink)

The central question in meta-ethics, and arguably all of ethics, is the question of what moral statements refer to. Several candidates have been proposed, including Platonic objects, natural objects, commands, and personal preferences. The answer, I suggest, is that it is none of these. Rather, morality is a framework. We see this by looking at common moral terms: ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ‘justice’, ‘guilt’, ‘responsibility’, ‘blame’, and ‘rights’. These terms all have something in common: they are legal terms. Since morality dates (...) to prehistoric times, it’s easy to see where this could have come from: prehistoric societies observed nature acting in a ‘court-like’ way – for example punishing them for overhunting – and inferred that this was a larger version of their own tribunal processes. Thus, we can define morality as an anthropomorphic framework based on the analogy of a human court, applied to human behaviour and its relation to nature. The framework persisted through human religious history, with various gods being the lawmaker and judge. This presents a problem: human society has worked hard to eliminate non-natural objects from our model of the world, replacing them with natural descriptions. Assuming we don’t really believe nature is a giant court, the question is how we replace morality with a natural description. (shrink)