4 ms·

>Statements of oughts are values not truths. I think values (in this context) are truths! It's an idea that seems strange at first, and I think that if you ask

>Statements of oughts are values not truths. I think values (in this context) are truths! It's an idea that seems strange at first, and I think that if you asked people on the street, they would probably say indeed that ought-statements aren't objectively true, just matters of opinion or something like that. But I think this is wrong. But to be sure, what I've been saying is that the claim that "We ought to reproduce as our primary purpose" is true is incorrect. If you don't think ought a statements are truths, then there's actually no disagreement here, you don't think it's true either. But I think ought-statements can be true. "Spinach is yucky" is a kind of statement that isn't a truth and isn't really true or false---it's just a matter of opinion. But I think that this is fundamentally different from, for example, "The earth revolves around the sun". The latter case is independent of what people believe or what kind of feelings they have about the roundness of the earth---not so for the first case. Now consider " We ought not hold slaves." Is this statement more like "Spinach is yucky" or "The earth revolves around the sun"? There was a time where most people would have disagreed with "We ought not hold slaves". They would have even said it's traditional, it's economically necessary, etc. But all that has no bearing on this statement. Slavery is wrong and has always been wrong - even when it was traditional, when most people held slaves, etc. Because morals aren't just claims about what's traditional or conducive to reproduction. Just like "the earth revolves around the sun", tradition and evolution and psychology don't affect the truth of this statement---it is simply true.

HKH2 3y ago
> I think that if you asked people on the street, they would probably say indeed that ought-statements aren't objectively true, just matters of opinion or something like that. Not that it really matters, but if you asked people in philosophy departments, they would say the same. > But to be sure, what I've been saying is that the claim that "We ought to reproduce as our primary purpose" is true is incorrect. If you don't think ought a statements are truths, then there's actually no disagreement here, you don't think it's true either. Since it's a value, it's either right or wrong. You've decided that "reproduction is necessary and sufficient for a meaningful life" is wrong. > Now consider " We ought not hold slaves." Is this statement more like "Spinach is yucky" or "The earth revolves around the sun"? It is in the same category as the former; it is a statement of value. > Slavery is wrong and has always been wrong - even when it was traditional, when most people held slaves, etc. Because morals aren't just claims about what's traditional or conducive to reproduction. Just like "the earth revolves around the sun", tradition and evolution and psychology don't affect the truth of this statement---it is simply true. I doubt it. I don't want to open up a can of worms, but I have no problem forcing people who have committed heinous crimes to work for nothing; my only problem is that I think such a system may not be implemented properly. Also, I don't have a problem with people not being able to profit from publicising their crimes. I think the only problem I have with the government seizing assets from criminals is that government officials abuse their power.
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  >Not that it really matters, but if you asked people in philosophy departments, they would say the same. https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4866 https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4866 The majority of the surveyed subscribe to moral realism (though there are no doubt biases in the demographic of those surveyed, and of course, the language used in descriptions of meta-ethical theories is more technical than "objectively true" or not). But as you said, that's neither here nor there. >Since it's a value, it's either right or wrong. You've decided that "reproduction is necessary and sufficient for a meaningful life" is wrong. But what this means for you is, apparently, just that you have positive feelings towards reproduction, and for me to disagree with you is not to reject some clear, objective indication of my purpose as if I've rejected a claim like "the earth is round"---it's actually more like you've told me "spinach is yucky" and I've said "No, I quite like spinach". >It is in the same category as the former; it is a statement of value. I don't think so and I don't think you treat such statements like the statements of the former either--- >but I have no problem forcing people who have committed heinous crimes to work for nothing Sure, fine, I'm talking about holding people who are innocent as slaves, a practice which has been seen as morally permissible at various times and places. Those who thought that it was morally permissible were, in fact, wrong to think so---just as those who thought "the sun revolves around the earth" was a true statement were wrong to think so. You see my point even if you disagree, right? The point is that there are times, places, cultures where people have done immoral things. That they are a product of evolution or tradition or whatever is besides the point to the immorality of what they've done. I am happy to be born in a society that values not holding (innocent) slaves. Just like I'm happy to be born in a society that understands the earth revolves around the sun. But it would be nonsensical for me to say that I'm happy to be born thinking "Spinach is yucky" because being born otherwise would lead me to believe in the "false" claim "Spinach is not yucky"---that doesn't make any sense, because the yuckiness of spinach isn't some objective property of spinach, and if I liked spinach, then spinach wouldn't be yucky, because a claim like "Spinach is yucky" is no more than an expression of my personal distaste for it. That I have a strong intuition that "slavery is wrong" is more like "the earth revolves around the sun" as opposed to "spinach is yucky" is evidence that moral claims aren't in fact just matters of personal taste. The immorality of holding innocent slaves isn't, prima facie, like the yuckiness of spinach---we certainly don't have the same attitudes towards them.

HKH2 3y ago

> I think that if you asked people on the street, they would probably say indeed that ought-statements aren't objectively true, just matters of opinion or something like that. Not that it really matters, but if you asked people in philosophy departments, they would say the same. > But to be sure, what I've been saying is that the claim that "We ought to reproduce as our primary purpose" is true is incorrect. If you don't think ought a statements are truths, then there's actually no disagreement here, you don't think it's true either. Since it's a value, it's either right or wrong. You've decided that "reproduction is necessary and sufficient for a meaningful life" is wrong. > Now consider " We ought not hold slaves." Is this statement more like "Spinach is yucky" or "The earth revolves around the sun"? It is in the same category as the former; it is a statement of value. > Slavery is wrong and has always been wrong - even when it was traditional, when most people held slaves, etc. Because morals aren't just claims about what's traditional or conducive to reproduction. Just like "the earth revolves around the sun", tradition and evolution and psychology don't affect the truth of this statement---it is simply true. I doubt it. I don't want to open up a can of worms, but I have no problem forcing people who have committed heinous crimes to work for nothing; my only problem is that I think such a system may not be implemented properly. Also, I don't have a problem with people not being able to profit from publicising their crimes. I think the only problem I have with the government seizing assets from criminals is that government officials abuse their power.

knightoffaith 3y ago
>Not that it really matters, but if you asked people in philosophy departments, they would say the same. https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4866 https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4866 The majority of the surveyed subscribe to moral realism (though there are no doubt biases in the demographic of those surveyed, and of course, the language used in descriptions of meta-ethical theories is more technical than "objectively true" or not). But as you said, that's neither here nor there. >Since it's a value, it's either right or wrong. You've decided that "reproduction is necessary and sufficient for a meaningful life" is wrong. But what this means for you is, apparently, just that you have positive feelings towards reproduction, and for me to disagree with you is not to reject some clear, objective indication of my purpose as if I've rejected a claim like "the earth is round"---it's actually more like you've told me "spinach is yucky" and I've said "No, I quite like spinach". >It is in the same category as the former; it is a statement of value. I don't think so and I don't think you treat such statements like the statements of the former either--- >but I have no problem forcing people who have committed heinous crimes to work for nothing Sure, fine, I'm talking about holding people who are innocent as slaves, a practice which has been seen as morally permissible at various times and places. Those who thought that it was morally permissible were, in fact, wrong to think so---just as those who thought "the sun revolves around the earth" was a true statement were wrong to think so. You see my point even if you disagree, right? The point is that there are times, places, cultures where people have done immoral things. That they are a product of evolution or tradition or whatever is besides the point to the immorality of what they've done. I am happy to be born in a society that values not holding (innocent) slaves. Just like I'm happy to be born in a society that understands the earth revolves around the sun. But it would be nonsensical for me to say that I'm happy to be born thinking "Spinach is yucky" because being born otherwise would lead me to believe in the "false" claim "Spinach is not yucky"---that doesn't make any sense, because the yuckiness of spinach isn't some objective property of spinach, and if I liked spinach, then spinach wouldn't be yucky, because a claim like "Spinach is yucky" is no more than an expression of my personal distaste for it. That I have a strong intuition that "slavery is wrong" is more like "the earth revolves around the sun" as opposed to "spinach is yucky" is evidence that moral claims aren't in fact just matters of personal taste. The immorality of holding innocent slaves isn't, prima facie, like the yuckiness of spinach---we certainly don't have the same attitudes towards them.