And where does that come from if not from something that ultimately reduces to a load of facts?
We have agreed that everything comes down to a scientific fact tho! There are layers! This is silly, I'm not repeating myself any more. You'll just say 'but how do you select facts? You need values' & then admit values comes from our brains which is a scientific fact. Enough now.
-
-
Okay, and it really seems that we can't get past this point. Because I'm not questioning that. Only the fact that from facts alone you can derive moral values. Only that.
-
He argue "well-being" should be defined fluidly and the definition should represent that which makes conscious creatures flourish. Then he argues that science can be used to maximize that. So what makes humans flourish (values) is imported as variables, not derived from science.
-
"Value" has a scope of definition and I think that's what's causing confusion. I disagree with Harris about the utility of his axiom(s), but he's def. not deriving values (defined as that which makes humans flourish) from science. He's using science to observe then maximize them.
End of conversation
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.