5 ms·

In 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 existan

by mercer 10y ago

In 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 ago
Retra, 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 ago
    Ah, 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".
    - mercer 10y ago
      Right, that makes more sense to me. But with that clarification, I don't understand your argument against "Moral facts exist because humans employ moral language and must to survive". I'm assuming 'must', here, is not some kind of moral imperative (that would be circular reasoning I think), but rather more of an observation: without moral language we'd be a great deal worse at surviving, and one of the reasons we're doing so 'well' is that we have moral language. So what's the problem there?
      - keane 10y ago
        Using cold Reason to examine what is actually True in the universe, we cannot tenably begin by assuming we must survive. In short, Moral Realism holds that moral properties exist mind-independently and Moral Anti-Realism denies this saying they're all just subjective inventions in our head. Empiricists, if they are to hold logically consistent conceptions about the universe, must hold some form of Moral Anti-realism because they lack evidence of mind-independent moral properties (though taking the comments on this story as an indicator they are generally unaware of this). Hume goes beyond the moral nihilism of Empiricism by saying (1) given that humans insist and are positive moral properties exist and (2) given that Empiricism shows us no evidence of mind-independent moral properties existing and never can due to Is-Ought then (3) the only way that these moral properties actually meaningfully exist is if they were based on a Supreme Being, not subject to dismissal by Empiricism. Otherwise they don't exist at all. From this a lot of people (like Marquis de Sade and his Sadism) took that they didn't exist at all and this is the primary subject human art, culture, and politics has been interacting with since then.
- Retra 10y ago
  What I was trying to say is that moral facts exist because our behavior is bound by certain 'themes', and that those themes only exist do to moral reasoning (that we may not actually control.) That is, there is no 'maximally objective' vantage point from which a human can base their reasoning in such a way that it will be free from any morality. There are moral conclusions that are simply primitive logical constructs, and the only way to reject them would be to reject reasoning altogether. (For example, you have a moral obligation to think. If you choose not to think, then you certainly can't be thinking with any kind of amoral objectivity. You're not reasoning anything anymore.) >This, shorter, amounts to "Moral facts exist because humans employ moral language and must to survive". I would have said "Moral facts exist because humans fundamentally cannot reason or survive without employing moral language." This isn't a coincidence, either. We don't 'happen' to employ morals, we think, therefore we think morally. >As Hume writes "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." Hume is wrong. Any mind which could make such an assertion implicitly assumes there is value in making such a statement, and thus implicitly assumes whatever existential values are necessary to support a world where such assertions are possible. To do otherwise is self-contradictory, and not a good basis for a convincing arguments.
  - keane 10y ago
    >Any mind which could make such an assertion implicitly assumes there is value in making such a statement, and thus implicitly assumes whatever existential values are necessary to support a world where such assertions are possible. Is-Ought shows us that Facts can't give us Values. Like you note, any human talking about any of this first "implicitly assumes there is value in making such a statement". More indication Moral Realism is the case and that values exist objectively. This is also why Christians likewise laugh at Nihilists/Empiricists. As CS Lewis put it "if the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning". >moral facts exist because our behavior is bound by certain 'themes'...humans fundamentally cannot reason or survive without employing moral language Nothing inside strict Empiricism or cold Reason indicates that humans must survive. Humans can insist they as a species are important and that humankind must survive until they are blue in the face and it wouldn't make it so. They can write book after book declaring that they have value but that wouldn't tell us they actually have value. However, if there were a book that declared that humans had value, that each and every human retained a non-subjective/mind-independent/objective and priceless value called imago dei and that their existence was deemed objectively good and in fact this book was the work of a non-subjective authority then this would change things.

by mercer 10y ago

keane 10y ago

Retra, 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 ago
  Ah, 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".
  - mercer 10y ago
    Right, that makes more sense to me. But with that clarification, I don't understand your argument against "Moral facts exist because humans employ moral language and must to survive". I'm assuming 'must', here, is not some kind of moral imperative (that would be circular reasoning I think), but rather more of an observation: without moral language we'd be a great deal worse at surviving, and one of the reasons we're doing so 'well' is that we have moral language. So what's the problem there?
    - keane 10y ago
      Using cold Reason to examine what is actually True in the universe, we cannot tenably begin by assuming we must survive. In short, Moral Realism holds that moral properties exist mind-independently and Moral Anti-Realism denies this saying they're all just subjective inventions in our head. Empiricists, if they are to hold logically consistent conceptions about the universe, must hold some form of Moral Anti-realism because they lack evidence of mind-independent moral properties (though taking the comments on this story as an indicator they are generally unaware of this). Hume goes beyond the moral nihilism of Empiricism by saying (1) given that humans insist and are positive moral properties exist and (2) given that Empiricism shows us no evidence of mind-independent moral properties existing and never can due to Is-Ought then (3) the only way that these moral properties actually meaningfully exist is if they were based on a Supreme Being, not subject to dismissal by Empiricism. Otherwise they don't exist at all. From this a lot of people (like Marquis de Sade and his Sadism) took that they didn't exist at all and this is the primary subject human art, culture, and politics has been interacting with since then.
Retra 10y ago
What I was trying to say is that moral facts exist because our behavior is bound by certain 'themes', and that those themes only exist do to moral reasoning (that we may not actually control.) That is, there is no 'maximally objective' vantage point from which a human can base their reasoning in such a way that it will be free from any morality. There are moral conclusions that are simply primitive logical constructs, and the only way to reject them would be to reject reasoning altogether. (For example, you have a moral obligation to think. If you choose not to think, then you certainly can't be thinking with any kind of amoral objectivity. You're not reasoning anything anymore.) >This, shorter, amounts to "Moral facts exist because humans employ moral language and must to survive". I would have said "Moral facts exist because humans fundamentally cannot reason or survive without employing moral language." This isn't a coincidence, either. We don't 'happen' to employ morals, we think, therefore we think morally. >As Hume writes "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." Hume is wrong. Any mind which could make such an assertion implicitly assumes there is value in making such a statement, and thus implicitly assumes whatever existential values are necessary to support a world where such assertions are possible. To do otherwise is self-contradictory, and not a good basis for a convincing arguments.
- keane 10y ago
  >Any mind which could make such an assertion implicitly assumes there is value in making such a statement, and thus implicitly assumes whatever existential values are necessary to support a world where such assertions are possible. Is-Ought shows us that Facts can't give us Values. Like you note, any human talking about any of this first "implicitly assumes there is value in making such a statement". More indication Moral Realism is the case and that values exist objectively. This is also why Christians likewise laugh at Nihilists/Empiricists. As CS Lewis put it "if the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning". >moral facts exist because our behavior is bound by certain 'themes'...humans fundamentally cannot reason or survive without employing moral language Nothing inside strict Empiricism or cold Reason indicates that humans must survive. Humans can insist they as a species are important and that humankind must survive until they are blue in the face and it wouldn't make it so. They can write book after book declaring that they have value but that wouldn't tell us they actually have value. However, if there were a book that declared that humans had value, that each and every human retained a non-subjective/mind-independent/objective and priceless value called imago dei and that their existence was deemed objectively good and in fact this book was the work of a non-subjective authority then this would change things.