Sadly, often this is offered, yes! But it needn't be. We can set premises based on things which evidently exist, like humans and suffering.
Well, yes. There isn't actually any objective morality outside humanity that we know of. Just our own evolved moral sense which makes us moral animals and gives our morality some consistencies which then inform the customs & discussion of it forever.
-
-
Of course. But the problem is not that moral sentiments, which are the product of evolution, are at the basis of human culture, including morality. Just that you have to decide philosophically which ones to give priority to, and which ones to base the choosing of the facts
-
Yes. I'll argue for liberalism and humanism and individual liberty because I think this is best for human thriving. Someone else will argue for a theocratic caliphate coz they think this best for human thriving coz they think Heaven is a thing & ensures ultimate human thriving.
-
The facts matter here because the claim that there is a heaven for people who worship a particular god is a factual claim. If convinced there is not, people are likely to seek to maximise human thriving a different way.
-
Yes, facts matter, but not by themselves. That was the schism here.
-
But now I think you're arguing that evolved morality is also a scientific fact that isn't enough by itself. That we set premises based on something other than this and if so, what?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
the facts that then inform moral values.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.