3 ms·
The trouble I have with that line of reasoning is that while I believe torturing people for fun is morally wrong (along with all proposed substitutes for (1)),
by longerthoughts 8y ago
The trouble I have with that line of reasoning is that while I believe torturing people for fun is morally wrong (along with all proposed substitutes for (1)), that only proves that I believe that, not that it is a physical reality in the absence of our perception of morals. To be fair, I think the burden of proof for arguing that objective morals exist is incredibly high and I can't think of anything that could reasonably prove it. I'm reading up on partners in crime arguments - looks like there's an incredible wealth of related debate to peruse.
- antidesitter 8y agoHope you find this material useful. The way I look at it is the other way around: The burden of proof lies squarely on the person who denies such an obvious proposition as (1). The same is true for similarly obvious propositions like "there is an external world which I can learn about through my senses" and "inductive reasoning is a valid way of attaining knowledge", which underpin the scientific enterprise and, moreover, any basis for critiquing (1) itself. One way to capture this is through the principle of phenomenal conservatism [1][2][3] as formulated by philosopher Michael Huemer. He has also written a book on the subject called Ethical Intuitionism. [1] https://philpapers.org/rec/HUEPCA https://philpapers.org/rec/HUEPCA [2] https://philpapers.org/rec/HUECPC https://philpapers.org/rec/HUECPC [3] https://www.iep.utm.edu/phen-con/ https://www.iep.utm.edu/phen-con/