4 ms·

>>no one has been able to show this external source. For a start, look up Nihilism on Wikipedia or Moral Anti-realism on the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosop

by keane 10y ago

>>no one has been able to show this external source. For a start, look up Nihilism on Wikipedia or Moral Anti-realism on the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: this is why people are Nihilists and Anti-realists. >>And I think he is wrong. No surprise, you can't provide a source of objective morality that is Empirical/mundane/"scientifically-verifiable". You give no reason why Hume is wrong because you seem to still not grasp the reach of what he "postulates". >>Is-Ought is only a problem if you chain yourself to the baseless idea… Dismissing it while unable to give a coherent refutation shows it not to be baseless but painful perhaps. >>Science can tell, empirically, what ought to be…it tells us with…evidence that [X: empirical fact]…thus we ought to [Y: behavior]. This presumes we ought to treat men a certain way. On what grounds should a human not murder another human? Because society will inflict a certain consequence? That's called Hypothetical Morality, and it falls under Moral Nonrealism. It can be ignored if one is willing to accept the consequence or can evade the consequence. Just because a neurobiologist says something on stage at TED does not make it the case. Though the Sam Harris fan club is often not capable of being persuaded otherwise. >>medicine tells us objectibly that we ought not to vomit every day Here you presume human health to be an ultimate good. We (hopefully obviously) can't reason "Humans like to practice violence therefore humans should continue to practice violence" and likewise we can't reason "Humans like to avoid vomiting therefore humans should avoid vomiting" as strange as that can at first sound. >>You don’t know were morality came from, therefore god. It's more an observation that our only options are #1 Moral Realism (cannot be shown Empirically) / "Theism"/departure from Empiricism #2 Moral Nonrealism / Atheism / Empiricism / Materialism You have chosen the second camp and seem to dislike the logical conclusions that camp is forced with, namely in such a world nothing is truly Moral or Immoral. How anyone is unfamiliar with this very real dichotomy this far away from 1738 is a puzzle. And you are without grounds to declare that those who proclaim camp #1 are truly acting Immorally.

redial 10y ago
What you (and Hume, but he has the weight of being a product of his time) don't understand is the reach of science, experience and empirical testing. Morality is a product of evolution, and by understanding it through science (in the broad sense) we have made incredible moral progress. Nihilism is a problem that is not solved by postulating a god, doing so doesn't get you any further. It is useless. You don't get meaning from anything by adding a god to it. I don't presume human healt to be an ultimate good, experience has shown that it is an ultimate good, or as ultimate as a goal can be. Of course health nihilism is also a thing, but is also not gonna get solved by postulating an invisible, undetectable agent, even if you call that agent god. I have not chosen a camp. You have provided no evidence for your position, and even gotten as far as claiming you don't need it, how convenient, and have dismissed offhand every argument against it in this thread simply because you don't understand that the "is-ought" problem is not as complicated as you make it sound. I don't dislike the conclusion of my position, I'm fine either way, ultimate objective morality to me is just as irrelevant as ultimate objective medicine. What you want is to ground morality to something so objective in a perfect sense, to which no other human developed idea has or can be. Why you want so bad for morality to be grounded on a god, and one of the worst if not the worst as the christian god is beyond me. What you need is evidence but you have none.
- keane 10y ago
  >>What you and Hume…don't understand is the reach of science, experience and empirical testing I'm familiar with Sam Harris' argument. We have measured levels of health, pain response, serotonin, dopamine, and various other yardsticks with new technology. Harris argues that assuming our goal is to maximize happiness and reduce pain, these technologies can help us track our progress. He's right. But this assumed suggested first principle of human empathy isn't novel. Hume in 1738 was very familiar with the concept of human empathy. It was not enough then to tell us how to act and never can be. >>I don't presume human healt to be an ultimate good, experience has shown that it is an ultimate good, or as ultimate as a goal can be. Being only a subjective human, your personal opinion about health, which is all this is, is not infallible and is validly rejected. >>I have not chosen a camp...ultimate objective morality to me is just as irrelevant as ultimate objective medicine. This is a real dichotomy, not a false dichotomy: moral statements refer to objective moral facts (Moral Realism) or they do not (Moral Nonrealism). You do not currently believe moral statements refer to objective moral facts, correct? That's one of the two camps. There is no neutral position, you have chosen. >>we have made incredible moral progress In your camp, Moral Nonrealism, morals (statements about what humans should do) don't refer to objective moral facts. Instead they are subjective whims and invented delusions we use to help us survive and thrive and to give us comfort. Just as one subjective moral opinion in America today cannot be objectively better than a differing subjective moral opinion in Brazil today, subjective opinions that differ across time also cannot be said to be better or worse than any other. Thus, while change occurs "progress" never does. >>one of the worst if not the worst as the christian god A common response to a proposed Upside-Down Kingdom, where the currently first will later be last. >>What you need is evidence but you have none. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

by keane 10y ago

redial 10y ago

What you (and Hume, but he has the weight of being a product of his time) don't understand is the reach of science, experience and empirical testing. Morality is a product of evolution, and by understanding it through science (in the broad sense) we have made incredible moral progress. Nihilism is a problem that is not solved by postulating a god, doing so doesn't get you any further. It is useless. You don't get meaning from anything by adding a god to it. I don't presume human healt to be an ultimate good, experience has shown that it is an ultimate good, or as ultimate as a goal can be. Of course health nihilism is also a thing, but is also not gonna get solved by postulating an invisible, undetectable agent, even if you call that agent god. I have not chosen a camp. You have provided no evidence for your position, and even gotten as far as claiming you don't need it, how convenient, and have dismissed offhand every argument against it in this thread simply because you don't understand that the "is-ought" problem is not as complicated as you make it sound. I don't dislike the conclusion of my position, I'm fine either way, ultimate objective morality to me is just as irrelevant as ultimate objective medicine. What you want is to ground morality to something so objective in a perfect sense, to which no other human developed idea has or can be. Why you want so bad for morality to be grounded on a god, and one of the worst if not the worst as the christian god is beyond me. What you need is evidence but you have none.

keane 10y ago
>>What you and Hume…don't understand is the reach of science, experience and empirical testing I'm familiar with Sam Harris' argument. We have measured levels of health, pain response, serotonin, dopamine, and various other yardsticks with new technology. Harris argues that assuming our goal is to maximize happiness and reduce pain, these technologies can help us track our progress. He's right. But this assumed suggested first principle of human empathy isn't novel. Hume in 1738 was very familiar with the concept of human empathy. It was not enough then to tell us how to act and never can be. >>I don't presume human healt to be an ultimate good, experience has shown that it is an ultimate good, or as ultimate as a goal can be. Being only a subjective human, your personal opinion about health, which is all this is, is not infallible and is validly rejected. >>I have not chosen a camp...ultimate objective morality to me is just as irrelevant as ultimate objective medicine. This is a real dichotomy, not a false dichotomy: moral statements refer to objective moral facts (Moral Realism) or they do not (Moral Nonrealism). You do not currently believe moral statements refer to objective moral facts, correct? That's one of the two camps. There is no neutral position, you have chosen. >>we have made incredible moral progress In your camp, Moral Nonrealism, morals (statements about what humans should do) don't refer to objective moral facts. Instead they are subjective whims and invented delusions we use to help us survive and thrive and to give us comfort. Just as one subjective moral opinion in America today cannot be objectively better than a differing subjective moral opinion in Brazil today, subjective opinions that differ across time also cannot be said to be better or worse than any other. Thus, while change occurs "progress" never does. >>one of the worst if not the worst as the christian god A common response to a proposed Upside-Down Kingdom, where the currently first will later be last. >>What you need is evidence but you have none. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism