4 ms·
> Moral knowledge doesn't really exist. If that is the case, then why should you or anyone prefer to believe your claim that moral knowledge doesn’t exist over
by lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
> Moral knowledge doesn't really exist.
If that is the case, then why should you or anyone prefer to believe your claim that moral knowledge doesn’t exist over the contrary?
- 0x3f 7mo agoDifferent kinds of claims, it's not self-referential
- lo_zamoyski 7mo ago> Different kinds of claims How so? If I claim that one should prefer the claim "moral knowledge doesn't exist" over its contrary, then I am making a moral claim. That would make it self-refuting. There is no fact-value dichotomy. And one more thing... > the lack of falsifiability Is falsifiability falsifiable? If all credible claims must be falsifiable, then where does that leave us with the criterion of falsifiability (which is problematic even part from this particular case, as anyone who has done any serious reading in the philosophy of science knows).