We have to work out moral values ourselves. Metaphysical truth may be meaningless.
-
-
Just a question 4 you after you come back from your break. Have you written anything justifying your rejection of Hume's is/ought divide? I'd love to read the argument, so please send me the reference.
-
No, because I hate this topic. The argument is that everything comes down to 'is' in the end because everything, including our morality is biologically based. But it's just too complicated and multi-faceted to trace everything back and we have to make arguments instead abt ought.
-
We don't know enough but if you believe that the most objective morality we can get is an optimum human morality, it takes a huge number of factors to establish exactly what that is so we have to make arguments based on human wellbeing.
-
Since you've not written on it, who do you think has made the best case for your position, or some close approximation to it? Sam Harris? Anyone else?
-
Sam Harris, probably, yes. The Moral Landscape.
-
Because 'ought' comes from human brains too and we don't choose to have morality so its appearance comes down to something that is.
-
Maybe Harris has an answer, but if there are no oughts, only is's, then it seems the logical conclusion is nihilism. And I don't think that's where you stand. But I'll go read the book before commenting further.
-
No, I don't see why knowing where my morality came from indicates nihilism. We already know it is there, that we didn't chose it and that we can't lose it without a frontal lobotomy. Trying to work down to what is the best for humans is something we'll be doing forever.
- 1 more reply
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.