metonymy4u

I think of ethical principles along a spectrum running from empiricist to rationalist tendencies. On the one hand the empirical argument starts from an assumption that morality is a fiction better left largely untouched by the collective. The role of government or society is mainly to make sure the streets are paved and (mostly) free of bloodshed. The rationalist argument would be that morality, even if a fiction, is a useful one that keeps us not just civil, but healthy. Healthy because we are reaching for something greater than ourselves, even if it is a fiction. Of course, many authors neatly dance between the poles of this false dichotomy. The question comes down to this: are you an empiricist or a rationalist? Both or neither?