3 ms·

There isn’t a fundamental difference between ought/is. Both moral judgements and facts are based on reasoned beliefs. Why do you think meaning is required for

There isn’t a fundamental difference between ought/is. Both moral judgements and facts are based on reasoned beliefs. Why do you think meaning is required for making a value judgement? I can very easily claim that killing humans is wrong without relying on any metaphysics, just like I can claim the sky is blue. Both are beliefs based on reasons; meaning can be discarded.

kuchenbecker 3y ago
That meaning can be discarded doesn't imply it ought to be discarded. --- Morals/meaning have a shaky absolute foundation, in that deep down nothing probably matters and the universe is indifferent. However I'm a person, born in modern society; everything has relative meaning even if the epistemological foundations are shaky. I see Nihilism similar the mathematicians trying to prove foundational math [1], and similarly doubting it's actually fundamental. Yet here we are using math to amazing things! Math doesn't need to be true for it to be useful. I find useful things valuable. Meaning, in particular shared meaning, is similarly valuable and worth pursuing even if they can't be proven. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory