Precisely. Science can tell us that an axe will cut off someone's head. Something else is needed to tell us whether and when it is ethical to do that. That will be morality & this comes from our brains.
-
-
I assumed you meant that when we get to the point of discussion, of argument, then we have to distinguish between what is and what ought to be on that level. Eg Can axes chop heads off? Yes. Should we use them for that? Only in very rare & specific cases. Let's discuss.
-
It all reduces to scientific facts in the end but we don't have access to all that info & it'd probably be too complicated to manage if we did so we're left arguing morality in terms of premises, principles and facts to aid us working stuff out.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I read Sapolsky's book as well, last year. So, you see, I don't deny any science at all. All that I say is that you can do ethics or morality just with scientific facts. I'm not talking about the origins of our moral sense, but rather the content of our moral values.
-
And where does that come from if not from something that ultimately reduces to a load of facts?
-
But how to you select from the facts the ones that are relevant and you should consider? I thought we already talked about how you have to have a moral system set in place beforehand, in order to select the relevant facts.
-
Yes, we have already agreed that and agreed that these are devised using the capacity of brains. What do you think we disagree on?
-
Well, I was just saying, from the very beginning that it's not only scientific facts that create our moral values, and they can't do it alone, since you have to have a moral system in place to select among them. Okay?
-
Oh god! If you're not going to explain what you mean by this and if it differs from what we've all just agreed is true - that this system comes from brains and the neuroscience explains it - we'll just have to accept there is no disagreement.
-
Well, I suppose that, at least between you and I, there's no disagreement. But, look, let's pick up Sam Harris' argument that we can derive our moral values from scientific facts that we know, and we don't need anything else. Here's the problem, and with this I don't agree.
-
But where does he say this? He says there are real facts that can be known about the wellbeing and suffering of conscious creatures and he sets this as the bar (values) and he accepts that this all - the suffering/wellbeing, reason & morality - comes from our brains. Like us.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
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.