11 ms·

> 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 us

by HKH2 3y ago

> 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). Yeah, I didn't have American universities in mind. > 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". I can't see how eating spinach or not has any real effect on society. Some values are more important than others, and some are even more important than facts. When you said, 'Doesn't the "rigorous approach to seeking/knowing truth" seem kind of detached from the reality of life to you?', you seem to be placing values over facts. That doesn't make values factual though. > I don't think so and I don't think you treat such statements like the statements of the former either--- Well it is a moral judgement, so I treat it more seriously than an aesthetic judgement, but they are both rooted in values all the same. > 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. They're wrong from a modern standpoint. The problem is that morals are like fashions; they are subject to change, and by that I mean, the weight that we place on different values is always changing. If freedom is the highest value, then slavery is the worst crime, or something like that. The problem is that we're not at the end of history; we are not the final judges of the world, and the people that come after us will see the world differently. I don't want to be so cynical to say that morals are simple tools that we use to reach our own ends; I think humans are better than that. I think morality is dependent on having faith in the people that have come before us. You may not think we are still dependent on their valuations, but I think we are. > 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. They appear wrong from our current standpoint. You cannot scientifically demonstrate that slavery is wrong though. Even pain itself is hard for scientists to measure. We have faith in our intuitions, and it's good that we do, but I can't see how they are factual no matter how confident we are in them.

knightoffaith 3y ago
>I can't see how eating spinach or not has any real effect on society. Some values are more important than others, and some are even more important than facts. When you said, 'Doesn't the "rigorous approach to seeking/knowing truth" seem kind of detached from the reality of life to you?', you seem to be placing values over facts. That doesn't make values factual though. Sure, my point wasn't that the yuckiness of spinach and the purpose of life were equally important issues, but that on the view that oughts are simply matters of opinion, that my rejections of the claims "spinach is yucky" and "our purpose is to reproduce" are equally valid---I've simply disagreed with an opinion of yours. This is very different from me rejecting a claim like "The earth is round". And I think, with claims like the latter, it makes sense for a rational discussion to be had about whether or not such a claim is right. But with claims like "spinach is yucky", there's surely nothing to be discussed---I like spinach and you don't, end of story. But I think you sense that the purpose of life isn't this kind of claim; otherwise it wouldn't make sense to try to rationally discuss this claim. So I suppose I'm struggling a bit to understand your case---you think the question of purpose is just a matter of opinion, but at the same time, our purpose is clearly to reproduce? Is this not just your personal opinion, on your view? Perhaps you're saying that, as a matter of fact, that everyone will find fulfillment in reproducing? But even this isn't true, there are plenty of celibates who find fulfillment in their way of life. Maybe just that most people will find fulfillment in reproducing? Maybe so, though there's clearly a lot of things other than reproducing that people find fulfilling---science, religion, mathematics, art, music, sports, and so on. Maybe that an unconscious reproductive drive undergirds the desire to engage in such activities even if they are not immediately related to reproduction directly? OK - maybe so, but if all of human behavior is undergirded by a reproductive drive, "our clear purpose is to reproduce" doesn't actually tell us anything about what to do, since anything that we do would be distantly related to a reproductive drive, and we're back to square one. (Of course, that's all putting aside that that all says nothing about what our true, objective purpose really is.) >They're wrong from a modern standpoint. The problem is that morals are like fashions; they are subject to change, and by that I mean, the weight that we place on different values is always changing. >They appear wrong from our current standpoint. I don't see how the fact that beliefs about morals have varied across time/space/culture means morality must be subjective any more than the fact that beliefs about scientifically discoverable facts have varied across time/space/culture means that scientifically discoverable facts must be subjective. It doesn't matter that there are some people who defend the earth being flat today. It doesn't matter that people used to believe the sun revolved around the earth. These things don't make beliefs about the shape of the earth or the relationship between the earth and the sun fashions in the sense that there's no truth of the matter. So too for morality. >You cannot scientifically demonstrate that slavery is wrong though. Maybe so, but I don't think scientific demonstrability is a necessary condition for something to be objectively true.

by HKH2 3y ago

knightoffaith 3y ago

>I can't see how eating spinach or not has any real effect on society. Some values are more important than others, and some are even more important than facts. When you said, 'Doesn't the "rigorous approach to seeking/knowing truth" seem kind of detached from the reality of life to you?', you seem to be placing values over facts. That doesn't make values factual though. Sure, my point wasn't that the yuckiness of spinach and the purpose of life were equally important issues, but that on the view that oughts are simply matters of opinion, that my rejections of the claims "spinach is yucky" and "our purpose is to reproduce" are equally valid---I've simply disagreed with an opinion of yours. This is very different from me rejecting a claim like "The earth is round". And I think, with claims like the latter, it makes sense for a rational discussion to be had about whether or not such a claim is right. But with claims like "spinach is yucky", there's surely nothing to be discussed---I like spinach and you don't, end of story. But I think you sense that the purpose of life isn't this kind of claim; otherwise it wouldn't make sense to try to rationally discuss this claim. So I suppose I'm struggling a bit to understand your case---you think the question of purpose is just a matter of opinion, but at the same time, our purpose is clearly to reproduce? Is this not just your personal opinion, on your view? Perhaps you're saying that, as a matter of fact, that everyone will find fulfillment in reproducing? But even this isn't true, there are plenty of celibates who find fulfillment in their way of life. Maybe just that most people will find fulfillment in reproducing? Maybe so, though there's clearly a lot of things other than reproducing that people find fulfilling---science, religion, mathematics, art, music, sports, and so on. Maybe that an unconscious reproductive drive undergirds the desire to engage in such activities even if they are not immediately related to reproduction directly? OK - maybe so, but if all of human behavior is undergirded by a reproductive drive, "our clear purpose is to reproduce" doesn't actually tell us anything about what to do, since anything that we do would be distantly related to a reproductive drive, and we're back to square one. (Of course, that's all putting aside that that all says nothing about what our true, objective purpose really is.) >They're wrong from a modern standpoint. The problem is that morals are like fashions; they are subject to change, and by that I mean, the weight that we place on different values is always changing. >They appear wrong from our current standpoint. I don't see how the fact that beliefs about morals have varied across time/space/culture means morality must be subjective any more than the fact that beliefs about scientifically discoverable facts have varied across time/space/culture means that scientifically discoverable facts must be subjective. It doesn't matter that there are some people who defend the earth being flat today. It doesn't matter that people used to believe the sun revolved around the earth. These things don't make beliefs about the shape of the earth or the relationship between the earth and the sun fashions in the sense that there's no truth of the matter. So too for morality. >You cannot scientifically demonstrate that slavery is wrong though. Maybe so, but I don't think scientific demonstrability is a necessary condition for something to be objectively true.