3 ms·

>The actual action of morality can have no basis except consensus. If we said this, what we'd be saying is roughly "what a society does in aggregate is based o

by keane 9y ago

>The actual action of morality can have no basis except consensus. If we said this, what we'd be saying is roughly "what a society does in aggregate is based on what the majority of individuals in a society agree to do" (a tautology). >Biology is morality free as is physics. Exactly! Moral facts cannot be determined by empirical observation. If you limited yourself to empirical observation ("Empiricism") as you seem to do, you are left with Moral Nonrealism. >Even if you insist there's a "pure" moral law somewhere you still have to enforce it or it's a toothless theory. What's in question is "do morals facts exist". You're saying "Alright, if moral facts exist they'd need to be enforced by a society in order to ensure the society complied with them". This is true; but in the same way that the society's acknowledgement that the moral facts exist doesn't change their existence, the society's enforcement of them also doesn't affect if they exist or what they are. >Then to enforce it you really have to get down to brass tacks and democracy. Democracy is one way that certain societies have chosen to organise themselves. They are often very effective at enforcing what a society believes to be correct. But this isn't disputed. What humans do –what they believe, what they say, what ethics they choose to conduct themselves by, how they organise with each other to enforce agreed upon norms– and whether these behaviors help them survive or thrive–is not in contention. These are just observations of what humans do (anthropology, etc). For Ben Shapiro's explanation, you can see the video starting at 45:44 through 59:20. As he puts it, "you don't get to burn down my house and then use the planks from my house to build your own philosophy". Here's a link to just that section: https://www.youtube.com/embed/s9IwamztdqA?start=2744&end=3560 https://www.youtube.com/embed/s9IwamztdqA?start=2744&end=356...

kleer001 9y ago
> Exactly! Moral facts cannot be determined by empirical observation. I didn't say that at all. Moral facts can be (can only be) found by empirical observation. The observation of what PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO. Anything else is academic masturbation. Sure, you can ask people and take their answers with a grain of salt, but you'll be running around in tautological circle diving morals from ancient books or poetic 'truths'.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I didn't say that at all. Moral facts can be (can only be) found by empirical observation. The observation of what PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO. That renders the “moral” part meaningless. What is moral is what people ought to do, irrespective of what they actually do. Now, you can argue that morality is a null concept, and thus “morsl facts” is necessarily an empty set (and if you start with a premise of strict materialism, this conclusion is inevitable; there is only “is”, no “ought”), but you can't coherently argue that moral facts both exist and can be determined by empirical observation of behavior.
  - kleer001 9y ago
    I heartily disagree. You're chasing a ghost. Morality is how people react to what is done, how they enforce the rules and such. That's the "doing" I'm pointing at. I'm sorry if that was unclear in my initial statement. It seems you may have thought I was assuming perfect moral behavior from all people. No, that's silly. People are cheating trash, lol. Not all the time, of course, but it's in the grain. Morality is as fractal as truth is, entirely dependent on the depth of questions being asked, the edge of inside and outside determined on the number of iterations. And morality is certainly not something to be determined in the vacuum of thought, it's a gritty, dirty, and nasty thing with edges in the slow slime and quick muck, it's ornate and like the rest of reality. > but you can't coherently argue that physical facts both exist and can be determined by empirical observation... Heh-heh, gotcha! ;)
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Morality is how people react to what is done That is a loose description of one sense of the word, but not the sense associated with “moral facts” in its usual use. “Morality” can refer to either “what ought to be done” or to “beliefs about what ought to be done”; the elements of the former (if they exist as facts, a point which is a matter of substantial dispute) are “moral facts”; the elements of the latter are “facts about morality” or, more clearly, “facts about moral sentiments”. The latter indisputably exist and are normal material facts subject to empirical inquiry, but they aren't the same thing as the former, nor (even assuming the former exist) do they have any necessary relationship to the former.

by keane 9y ago

kleer001 9y ago

> Exactly! Moral facts cannot be determined by empirical observation. I didn't say that at all. Moral facts can be (can only be) found by empirical observation. The observation of what PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO. Anything else is academic masturbation. Sure, you can ask people and take their answers with a grain of salt, but you'll be running around in tautological circle diving morals from ancient books or poetic 'truths'.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> I didn't say that at all. Moral facts can be (can only be) found by empirical observation. The observation of what PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO. That renders the “moral” part meaningless. What is moral is what people ought to do, irrespective of what they actually do. Now, you can argue that morality is a null concept, and thus “morsl facts” is necessarily an empty set (and if you start with a premise of strict materialism, this conclusion is inevitable; there is only “is”, no “ought”), but you can't coherently argue that moral facts both exist and can be determined by empirical observation of behavior.
- kleer001 9y ago
  I heartily disagree. You're chasing a ghost. Morality is how people react to what is done, how they enforce the rules and such. That's the "doing" I'm pointing at. I'm sorry if that was unclear in my initial statement. It seems you may have thought I was assuming perfect moral behavior from all people. No, that's silly. People are cheating trash, lol. Not all the time, of course, but it's in the grain. Morality is as fractal as truth is, entirely dependent on the depth of questions being asked, the edge of inside and outside determined on the number of iterations. And morality is certainly not something to be determined in the vacuum of thought, it's a gritty, dirty, and nasty thing with edges in the slow slime and quick muck, it's ornate and like the rest of reality. > but you can't coherently argue that physical facts both exist and can be determined by empirical observation... Heh-heh, gotcha! ;)
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Morality is how people react to what is done That is a loose description of one sense of the word, but not the sense associated with “moral facts” in its usual use. “Morality” can refer to either “what ought to be done” or to “beliefs about what ought to be done”; the elements of the former (if they exist as facts, a point which is a matter of substantial dispute) are “moral facts”; the elements of the latter are “facts about morality” or, more clearly, “facts about moral sentiments”. The latter indisputably exist and are normal material facts subject to empirical inquiry, but they aren't the same thing as the former, nor (even assuming the former exist) do they have any necessary relationship to the former.