6 ms·
Atheism is true and moral facts do exist. They exist because there are universal and fundamental structures to decision-making processes, and we have a moral ob
by Retra 10y ago
Atheism is true and moral facts do exist. They exist because there are universal and fundamental structures to decision-making processes, and we have a moral obligation to engage them, because they are necessary for moral reasoning. Which in turn is just a special kind of general reasoning, which is necessitated by our very existance.
- icebraining 10y agoIf moral reasoning is simply a necessity of our very existence, then anything we decide to do is necessarily moral, no? If otherwise our existence only necessitates some general reasoning, but not necessarily that special case, then why should we reason morally? Why shouldn't we avoid that special case?
- redial 10y agoReplace morality with health and you'll see the problem in your argument. Health is a necessity of our existence, but not all the things we do are healthy. Why then should we practice a healthy lifestyle?
- icebraining 10y agoI don't know. Why should we? I mean, it's a good way to achieve some goals, if one prefers to do so.
- keane 10y ago>>They exist because there are universal and fundamental structures... This is what Is-Ought is negating. We can't observe a Fact ("Is") and conclude a Value/Moral Fact ("Ought"). Your observance of structures falls under "Is".
- mercer 10y agoIn my opinion this kind of gets to the heart of the (mutual?) confusion here. The person you respond to also wrote: > which is necessitated by our very existance. ...which strikes me as very much accepting that this entire line of reasoning falls under 'Is'. If the premise is that we are compelled to do things because we happen to be creatures evolved that way, the 'Ought' just doesn't become relevant. Perhaps your view of 'Ought' is just very different from an atheist's view of 'Ought' (or at least mine). My 'Ought' is really just a dresses up 'Is', from your point of view, but the difference is that I'm okay with that. Most atheists that I know are.
- keane 10y agoRetra, paraphrased, reasons "Moral facts exist because decision-making structures exist which are necessary for moral reasoning and this reasoning in turn is necessitated for our very existence". This, shorter, amounts to "Moral facts exist because humans employ moral language and must to survive". That humans happen to employ decision-making structures, employ moral language, tell themselves morals exist, or even need moral language and norms to survive/thrive/be happy/be comfortable does not tell us if moral facts actually exist. It only tells us that humans happen to employ morals and happen to need morals to exist. As amazing and insane as it sounds, what Hume shows us is that we cannot even assume human continued existence is necessary to reason. Reason is, as Richard Dawkins notes, cold and indifferent to human existence. At this "necessitated by our existence" is exactly what Retra's argument improperly assumes and hinges on. As Hume writes "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." The same logic that prevents us from decreeing whether Hume ought to scratch his finger based on any observed 'Is' likewise prevents us from decreeing whether Hume should destroy the whole world.
- mercer 10y ago> As amazing and insane as it sounds, what Hume shows us is that we cannot even assume human continued existence is necessary to reason I'm losing you from this point on. Could you elaborate? Because to me it sounds pretty much right on the money that reason is basically necessitated by our existence. It's a layer on top of an experienced reality that may or may not be Objective in nature, whatever that would mean exactly, and without us, or other creatures capable of 'constructing' this layer, it doesn't really exist.
- keane 10y agoAh, whoops. Humans having/employing cognition and reasoning are likely necessitated by us existing. What Hume/Dawkins/I are saying is that human survival/existence is not necessitated by Reason, which is cold and indifferent. As Dawkins says Reason inside the bounds of Empiricism shows us only "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference".