(Return to main path)

I'm very skeptical about the direction you're taking. I realize there is a long philosophical tradition that seeks to find the right and the good in the nature of things. Philosophers in this tradition believe that moral right and goodness are not simply the product of human beliefs, attitudes, and choices. They are objective in the sense that they do not depend on such human preferences. They are discovered, not created, by human beings.

But is any of this more than a fantasy? A hope? A dream? A will-o'-the-wisp?

Most modern moral philosophers believe that there is a logical gap between what is and what ought to be. We cannot infer what ought to be from what is. The nature of things won't tell us what is good and how we ought to live.

If you are going to argue for an objective moral order in the nature of things, you've got your work cut out for you.