3 ms·

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 (th

by 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.
- Retra 10y ago
  >Is-Ought shows us that Facts can't give us Values. Is-Ought is us claiming that facts can't produce values. And we can be wrong about it just fine. Some facts can give us values. For instance, the fact that we can choose our own values gives us values. The fact that we have to make decisions means that we value those things which are necessary to make decisions. >Nothing inside strict Empiricism or cold Reason indicates that humans must survive. I didn't say we must survive. I said we cannot survive without moral reasoning. Humans who make moral decisions implicitly establish moral value for their decision making abilities. This means that if you go around saying "do X", then you must also support the claim "saying 'do X' is morally correct (in certain situations.)" Which means that you must also support the claim "making moral decisions is correct," which necessitates that you value the ability to make decisions. So long as you wish for logical consistency. (This is not unlike asserting that "'P is true' is true" for all P is a necessary structural property of truth.) Now, if you want turn around and say "we should all just be dead", then you're making a moral decision that invalidates those values. It is self contradictory. If you think you should be dead, doing anything but dying is a contradiction. Unless you're being non-general: "We should all be dead, except for just for a little while while we all prepare to deal with this revelation." I don't see how you can argue that this can be a convincing argument to consider, even hypothetically.
  - keane 10y ago
    >For instance, the fact that we can choose our own values gives us values. When examining what is actually the case rather than only observing what humans happen to think, observations like this aren't able to assist us in making a determination. Just as we can't reason "Humans believe and act like God exists therefore God exists" (here I imagine you concur) we likewise can't reason "Humans believe they have value therefore humans do have value". You could make the completely uncontested point "Humans believe they have value therefore humans believe they have value" but it would be an unhelpful tautology. >which necessitates that you value the ability to make decisions Like I mentioned before, we agree in our rejection of moral nihilism: any human talking about any of this first "implicitly assumes there is value in making such a statement" and this serves as more indication Moral Realism is the case and that values exist objectively. >I don't see how you can argue that this can be a convincing argument to consider, even hypothetically I'm suggesting people will benefit from adopting logically consistent viewpoints. - Empiricism with Moral Nonrealism/Nihilism: logically consistent - Non-Empiricism with Moral Realism: logically consistent - Empiricism with Moral Realism: logically inconsistent, untenable

by Retra 10y ago

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.

Retra 10y ago
>Is-Ought shows us that Facts can't give us Values. Is-Ought is us claiming that facts can't produce values. And we can be wrong about it just fine. Some facts can give us values. For instance, the fact that we can choose our own values gives us values. The fact that we have to make decisions means that we value those things which are necessary to make decisions. >Nothing inside strict Empiricism or cold Reason indicates that humans must survive. I didn't say we must survive. I said we cannot survive without moral reasoning. Humans who make moral decisions implicitly establish moral value for their decision making abilities. This means that if you go around saying "do X", then you must also support the claim "saying 'do X' is morally correct (in certain situations.)" Which means that you must also support the claim "making moral decisions is correct," which necessitates that you value the ability to make decisions. So long as you wish for logical consistency. (This is not unlike asserting that "'P is true' is true" for all P is a necessary structural property of truth.) Now, if you want turn around and say "we should all just be dead", then you're making a moral decision that invalidates those values. It is self contradictory. If you think you should be dead, doing anything but dying is a contradiction. Unless you're being non-general: "We should all be dead, except for just for a little while while we all prepare to deal with this revelation." I don't see how you can argue that this can be a convincing argument to consider, even hypothetically.
- keane 10y ago
  >For instance, the fact that we can choose our own values gives us values. When examining what is actually the case rather than only observing what humans happen to think, observations like this aren't able to assist us in making a determination. Just as we can't reason "Humans believe and act like God exists therefore God exists" (here I imagine you concur) we likewise can't reason "Humans believe they have value therefore humans do have value". You could make the completely uncontested point "Humans believe they have value therefore humans believe they have value" but it would be an unhelpful tautology. >which necessitates that you value the ability to make decisions Like I mentioned before, we agree in our rejection of moral nihilism: any human talking about any of this first "implicitly assumes there is value in making such a statement" and this serves as more indication Moral Realism is the case and that values exist objectively. >I don't see how you can argue that this can be a convincing argument to consider, even hypothetically I'm suggesting people will benefit from adopting logically consistent viewpoints. - Empiricism with Moral Nonrealism/Nihilism: logically consistent - Non-Empiricism with Moral Realism: logically consistent - Empiricism with Moral Realism: logically inconsistent, untenable