I think the single- or two legged stool works for many, as long as you are willing to wobble. Outrage culture has a high moral standard and sustained emotions...
You're making some really important points that seem to be (willfully) overlooked by a culture that insists on moral boundaries without a justifying (or any coherent really) metaphysics. You write, "But there is no way around it, if you want to say that sex trafficking is evil, and most of us do, you're committed to making strong metaphysical claims, like it or not."
Absolutely correct, but I'd also offer a slightly different formulation that I've found helpful in conversations from Justin Brierly's book. Basically, his observation/argument is that people do indeed have a strong sense of morality, of certain things actually being evil. Once this fact is acknowledged, the task then becomes thinking about what kind(s) of metaphysic would allow for it.
So, instead of the (true) assertion that *if* you want to be able to appeal to universal moral boundaries *then* you must accept a corresponding metaphysic, the question turns into an acknowledgement of sincerely held universal moral boundaries and asks what kind of metaphysic might best fit that fact.
Anyway, I've enjoyed these posts and will be curious to see where you take the conversation.
Having used a single leg milking stool, you need to be aware of where your feet are, as they are the other two "legs" of the stool. By not having your feet in the proper place, say Metaphysics and Morality, there is no way that you will be able to find balance. So it is a good metaphor. By placing too great an emphasis on any of the three, at the expense of any other, will collapse, which da boom alluded to.
I think the single- or two legged stool works for many, as long as you are willing to wobble. Outrage culture has a high moral standard and sustained emotions...
You're making some really important points that seem to be (willfully) overlooked by a culture that insists on moral boundaries without a justifying (or any coherent really) metaphysics. You write, "But there is no way around it, if you want to say that sex trafficking is evil, and most of us do, you're committed to making strong metaphysical claims, like it or not."
Absolutely correct, but I'd also offer a slightly different formulation that I've found helpful in conversations from Justin Brierly's book. Basically, his observation/argument is that people do indeed have a strong sense of morality, of certain things actually being evil. Once this fact is acknowledged, the task then becomes thinking about what kind(s) of metaphysic would allow for it.
So, instead of the (true) assertion that *if* you want to be able to appeal to universal moral boundaries *then* you must accept a corresponding metaphysic, the question turns into an acknowledgement of sincerely held universal moral boundaries and asks what kind of metaphysic might best fit that fact.
Anyway, I've enjoyed these posts and will be curious to see where you take the conversation.
Having used a single leg milking stool, you need to be aware of where your feet are, as they are the other two "legs" of the stool. By not having your feet in the proper place, say Metaphysics and Morality, there is no way that you will be able to find balance. So it is a good metaphor. By placing too great an emphasis on any of the three, at the expense of any other, will collapse, which da boom alluded to.