If we can ignore moral edicts because they’re too demanding (or because we can find competing moral demands from other groups), why can’t we just ignore all of them?
Because if you ignore all of them, people won’t give you nice things. You’ve got to give something to get something. But if you tell me that I ought to give much more than I get, otherwise I’m evil, then I’m liable to say “don’t preach at me” and shut the door.
That sounds a lot more like trade than morality to me. I’m personally pretty far down the anti-realism road, but I think there are different heuristic modules at play.
To me, trade and morality overlap more than they differ. For example, if someone did me good, even if they didn’t put any conditions on it, I instinctively want to do them good in return, more than I want to good to other people (who might need it more).
Because if you ignore all of them, people won’t give you nice things. You’ve got to give something to get something. But if you tell me that I ought to give much more than I get, otherwise I’m evil, then I’m liable to say “don’t preach at me” and shut the door.
That sounds a lot more like trade than morality to me. I’m personally pretty far down the anti-realism road, but I think there are different heuristic modules at play.
To me, trade and morality overlap more than they differ. For example, if someone did me good, even if they didn’t put any conditions on it, I instinctively want to do them good in return, more than I want to good to other people (who might need it more).