Question

This is somewhat related to my previous question, here: Is the nature of morality counterfactual?. If morality is counterfactual, what would a necessitarian point of view imply about it? Since necessitarians do not believe in counterfactuals, would that mean a necessitarian does not believe in the existence of morality? This does not mean a necessitarian would behave immorally, just that there is no such thing as morality, because morality is a counterfactual theory. But has any philosopher argued that the existence of morality is compatible with necessitarianism?

Answer 1

If morality is counterfactual, a necessitarian would not believe in its existence, but they can still argue that morality is compatible with necessitarianism.

Step-by-step explanation:

If morality is counterfactual, a necessitarian point of view would imply that there is no such thing as morality. Necessitarians do not believe in counterfactuals, so they would not believe in the existence of morality. However, it is important to note that this does not mean a necessitarian would behave immorally. It simply means that they do not believe in the concept of morality.

That being said, there are philosophers who have argued that the existence of morality is compatible with necessitarianism. They propose that morality can still exist within a deterministic framework, even if it is not grounded in free will or counterfactuals. They may argue that moral values are based on natural facts about the world, rather than individual feelings or beliefs. This perspective, known as ethical naturalism, suggests that morality can be objective and independent of personal beliefs or choices.