3 ms·

>Any mind which could make such an assertion implicitly assumes there is value in making such a statement, and thus implicitly assumes whatever existential valu

by 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 keane 10y ago

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