The is/ought "problem"

Philosophy
61
I'm not sure why any argument that uses "facts, i.e. use science" could not, broadly speaking, be considered scientific. What area of science does not work this way?
I thought we were discussing ethics. Ethics does not work that way. Politics, as another example, does not work that way. But from both we wish that where they need facts, they will take those that are most reliable, i.e. from science. Actually, I'd say good politics definitely work that way. Otherwise it's just dogmatic ideology. As for ethics, I'd say the same. Otherwise, again, it's just ideology or moral absolutism.
I think a lot of liberals (and I'm a far-left liberal BTW) feel this way about criticizing radical Islam because they're sensitive to picking on the underdog. They often like to believe that the terrorists are not motivated by their religion, that they are motivated by politics or poverty, or they're not "true" Muslims (No True Scotsman fallacy anyone?), or something else. But that is simply ignorance.
Read some scientific work about Muslim terrorists. Political and ethical discussion should be fed by facts, didn't we agree on that? I will admit, I should have said that it's ludicrous to argue "that they are only motivated by politics". Politics (such as U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East) does play a role in radicalizing Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, I think Harris gives short shrift to this in his book The End of Faith. Aside from that, are you seriously arguing that "scientific work" suggests that they aren't largely motivated by their religious beliefs? What about Boko Haram? What, aside from their religious beliefs, motivated them to kidnap more than 3,000 women and girls to be married off (i.e. made into sex slaves)? Were they upset about some political injustice and the solution was mass sex slavery? And what other groups have recently staged mass beheadings of civilians for "political" reasons rather than religious? Those beheaded by Isis in Iraq were beheaded strictly because they were the wrong type of Muslims, and there are frequently mass beheadings in Saudi Arabia for such heinous crimes as homosexuality and being a victim of rape. What are the non-Islamic factors in these examples? Are you really unwilling to admit that these actions are motivated primarily by their radical Islamic beliefs?
Seriously, moral relativism is a moral sickness that has infected much of the liberal community.
Yes, it is. I am not a moral relativist. But you must avoid the thinking error that moral absolutism is the only alternative. I think I was pretty clear on that. Well, Harris' position is not absolutism either. Moral absolutism is the belief that certain actions (e.g. lying) are immoral under any circumstances. I should have said, if you don't agree with Harris, you're either a moral relativist or a moral absolutist. Of course, I know that you are neither. What is it we're disagreeing about again?
Personally, I can't think of any reason to believe that whales are not capable of suffering, so we'd have to weigh their interests against ours. I'm pretty sure the whalers could find another profession, but the whales don't have the option of not being whales.
So the distinction 'emotional' versus 'rational' argument does not hold? And now: what is the scientific justification of the balance between 'livelihood of a whaler' and 'life of a whale'? Isn't a whale's life worth more than the livelihood of a man? And compared to a pig? Or a cow? Or a fish? Can we base our decision on science alone, without reference to a value? If there are answers to these questions (and I suspect there are, whether we're capable of discovering them or not), what do you suggest is a better way to find them than, broadly speaking, science? Take a vote of people's feelings (while disregarding the feelings of the nonverbal animals unable to participate in the vote)?
Factory farming is objectively immoral too, by any reasonable utilitarian standard.
I agree. But I think many utilitarianists will see it otherwise. Do they have their facts wrong, or their values? If they're not taking the suffering of animals into account, then they have their facts wrong.
So, again, since Harris' position on morality/ethics is basically the same as most philosophers, and since he hasn't claimed to have solved the is/ought "problem", why is he being so criticized for his book The Moral Landscape? I think it's mostly because he's been labeled a bigot for his "Islam bashing", and because "professional" philosophers take umbrage to an "outsider" invading their territory. But that's just my theory.
My theory is that he gives very shallow representations of existing philosophical viewpoints, which are known to have many problems (free will, ethics), but at the same time he is a great speaker. He stands in the spotlight with cheap, outdated philosophy. You say "shallow", I say "concise". :coolsmile: Personally, I found Harris' The Moral Landscape significantly deeper and better-reasoned than Peter Singer's Practical Ethics (which is commonly used as a major text in upper-level college philosophy courses). But that's just me.
62
This is what Harris says, more or less. It's getting hard to tell just what you disagree with.
If that is all, then, again, it is nothing new. It is just utilitarianism, with all its known problems. Thinking science will help us in the future to solve value questions, is scientism.
I get so tired of the "scientism" cry. If anyone was saying "because we have solved some problems in the past using science, that means we WILL solve these particular problems in the future using science", then yes, that would be scientism. No one said that except you. The rest of us, clearly, are saying, "science has proven to be a useful tool despite philosophical objections, therefore, it's a good idea to use it." You've actually agreed to that a couple times, at least I thought you did, then you backtrack and muddy the waters. Why? What is your objective in putting down Harris? Why would you NOT want to at least attempt this? What do you think of the universal statement of human rights by the UN? Isn't that an example of exactly what we're talking here?
63
This is what Harris says, more or less. It's getting hard to tell just what you disagree with.
If that is all, then, again, it is nothing new. It is just utilitarianism, with all its known problems. Thinking science will help us in the future to solve value questions, is scientism.
I get so tired of the "scientism" cry. I too am weary of the "scientism" cry. It just seems like a conversation-stopper. It's like saying "Hitler did it!" And it seems to go hand in hand with accusations of "reductionism" and the quasi-mystical version of "emergent properties". People who make the scientism accusation often contend that certain systems (such as living systems) cannot be explained--even in principle--in terms of their constituent parts. They contend that since the parts do not have the qualities of the whole (e.g. the atoms that make up water don't have the quality of "wetness"), then the whole cannot possibly be explained in terms of its parts. This is nothing more than confusion and a lack of imagination. After all, the individual components of a mouse trap do not possess the quality of "mouse-murder-ness". If certain systems can't be explained in terms of their constituent parts, how on earth can they be explained? Can they be explained? It all sounds like a bunch of woo-woo to me. Also, scientism accusers often imagine that there are people who are so pro-science that they think it's stupid or worthless to bother learning about anything that's not scientific such as literature or art criticism. I've never met any of these people, either in person, online, or in print. Have you?
64
Also, scientism accusers often imagine that there are people who are so pro-science that they think it's stupid or worthless to bother learning about anything that's not scientific such as literature or art criticism. I've never met any of these people, either in person, online, or in print. Have you?
If anything, I'd say it is more common for someone who reads science to also enjoy literature and art. Someone less well read is more likely to say something like "that's what they say", referring to some undefined body of experts that they believe exists. But people who believe that are just as easily swayed to believe a YouTube documentary or something Mitt Romney said. There are of course arrogant scientists who don't have time to explain what they know, and a few who can't let go of their pet theory, but these are isolated examples and the method is designed to work against them or around them. So, really "scientism" is just not an argument. Unless you can specifically state how someone's scientific claim is not a proper use of the scientific method, there's no point in making such a broad statement.
65
Actually, I'd say good politics definitely work that way. Otherwise it's just dogmatic ideology. As for ethics, I'd say the same. Otherwise, again, it's just ideology or moral absolutism.
Fully agree with that one.
I will admit, I should have said that it's ludicrous to argue "that they are only motivated by politics". Politics (such as U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East) does play a role in radicalizing Islamic fundamentalists.
Yes, and 2 ages of colonialism before. Did you read the link that TheVillageAtheist posted in the Charlie Hebdo thread? Please do, and imagine you were living there. How would you feel?
Aside from that, are you seriously arguing that "scientific work" suggests that they aren't largely motivated by their religious beliefs? What about Boko Haram? What, aside from their religious beliefs, motivated them to kidnap more than 3,000 women and girls to be married off (i.e. made into sex slaves)? Were they upset about some political injustice and the solution was mass sex slavery?
Yes, I think it plays a minor role. They need some ideology to justify their deeds. In other times they might have used Marxism, now it happens to be Islam.
Are you really unwilling to admit that these actions are motivated primarily by their radical Islamic beliefs?
Only a little. If they had used Marxism as legitimation, they would have killed other 'symbols', and used other ways instead of beheading. A shot through the head?
Well, Harris' position is not absolutism either. Moral absolutism is the belief that certain actions (e.g. lying) are immoral under any circumstances. I should have said, if you don't agree with Harris, you're either a moral relativist or a moral absolutist. Of course, I know that you are neither. What is it we're disagreeing about again?
No idea. In the first place because I don't really see what Harris is arguing for. His TED talk is unclear as it can be, and does not motivate me at all to read more of his ideas about morality. My experiences with his pamphlet about free will of course play a role in that decision too. (BTW, you promised to come back to that topic... still waiting.) Then I see you have a different concept of moral absolutism than I have. For me moral absolutism means that there exist absolute norms. but that they of course are dependent on the situation. But they are not dependent on the moral subject: what he feels, thinks, his cultural background, his biography etc etc. In every situation there is one and only one correct moral norm according to which we act. We may not know a norm yet, but the status of a moral norm is 'objective true'. I don't believe in such a thing, bit it is not so that that means that norms are just a personal preference. Ah, just looked it up, you are right]:
Moral absolutism is an ethical view that particular actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good.
Seems I confused it with moral objectivism:
Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated. Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.
But then moral absolutism is a deontological theory, i.e. cannot be defined in terms of 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people'.
If there are answers to these questions (and I suspect there are, whether we're capable of discovering them or not), what do you suggest is a better way to find them than, broadly speaking, science? Take a vote of people's feelings (while disregarding the feelings of the nonverbal animals unable to participate in the vote)?
No. You have to accept that we have no objective facts to completely base our values on. We decide, together, in a never-ending ethical, rational discourse, in which we give reasons why we prefer one value (we should minimise suffering of sentient beings) over the other (for good health you must eat meat regularly). What if science shows that pigs suffer terribly (which I think they do), and at the same time shows that we really need to eat meat regularly? Two values, how would you decide? Measure the number of 'suffer-neurons' in a pig, and compare them to the 'suffer-neurons' in a not quite healthy human?
66

About my ideas concerning scientism, see this thread].

67

Way out of my area of understanding. From my background, this is what I perceive so far.
Are we not talking about human skills? Is not a philosophical argument requiring learned skills no different than a welder welding two pieces of iron?
So, category, Human Skills, sub-category, Philosophical Trade Skills.
The problem.
Method of use of Philosophical Trade Skills use of the “is/ought" method and the principals involved and its usage by a book written by Mr. Harris. And Mr. Harris’s critics accusing Mr. Harris of violation of the proper Philosophical Trade Skills method of the trade.
And the argument by Bug is that the trade is not allowed to define certain words used in the trade when using the “is/ought" method. And by defining those certain words the problem would be solved, but by doing so you have to break the rules of the “is/ought" method.
Am I anywhere near the facts? Note, this is before scientism comes into play.

68

I went back to Gdb’s first post and found mostly agreement in the concepts but different phrasing. Where things get contentious is when Gdb brings up specific applications. He tends to present something I believe has a lot of data as if it is highly contentious. Like animal welfare. Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma should get you caught up on that. He alludes to vague problems with getting people to agree while BugRib points to how easily we can solve the worst cases and how big of a step that would be.
In his first post his says this:
“So even there the questions about the methods of science are not definitely solved."
This is not a problem. It is the strength of science that they admit that. It is the rule that they question their own rules that sets them apart from our primitive ancestors. If we wait until someone in a lab figures out what it means to be nice, it will be too late. What we’ve been doing is waiting for a savoir, in the form of a god or a great leader. Science doesn’t do that, it keeps releasing every bit of new data and every new tool it finds and accepts the feedback when the data is wrong or the tool doesn’t work. Gdb doesn’t seem to get that when he says Harris has “nothing new" or his methods are “cheap". That’s not feedback, that just an insult.

69
Aside from that, are you seriously arguing that "scientific work" suggests that they aren't largely motivated by their religious beliefs? What about Boko Haram? What, aside from their religious beliefs, motivated them to kidnap more than 3,000 women and girls to be married off (i.e. made into sex slaves)? Were they upset about some political injustice and the solution was mass sex slavery?
Yes, I think it plays a minor role. They need some ideology to justify their deeds. In other times they might have used Marxism, now it happens to be Islam. I think it's clearly more than just using "ideology to justify their deeds". If that were the case, then Bhuddists from Tibet who have suffered terrible oppression would be kidnapping Chinese schoolgirls by the boatload and turning them into sex slaves. No, I think it's many cases it's deeds driven almost entirely by ideology.
Are you really unwilling to admit that these actions are motivated primarily by their radical Islamic beliefs?
Only a little. If they had used Marxism as legitimation, they would have killed other 'symbols', and used other ways instead of beheading. A shot through the head? I agree. And radical Marxists did use such methods. Clearly they were largely motivated by ideology. They weren't just psychopaths looking for an excuse to kill. You seem to have no problem acknowledging this when it comes to secular ideologies, but not so much with religious ones, particularly radical Islam. Just as Christianity was the primary motivating factor during the Inquisition, radical Islam is clearly a major factor in many acts of terrorism and other atrocities today. The difference between modern Islam and modern Christianity is that, frankly, modern Christians don't take their holy books very seriously anymore. If they did, Western society would be executing people for things like homosexuality, slavery would be common, and antisemitism would still be socially acceptable. Hell, I even attribute the Holocaust largely to centuries of Christian antisemitism in Europe. Luckily, modern Christians have learned to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that conform to post-Enlightenment secular morality and disregard all of that nasty stuff about killing people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath and whatnot. A large part--perhaps most--of the Islamic world has not done this. Even "moderate" Muslims in Western countries still hold views more extreme than the most strident Christians fundamentalists. Several reputable polls have demonstrated that large numbers of Muslims (not just a tiny "fringe" minority) living in Western nations hold deeply disturbing views. Just one example from a BBC poll of British Muslims:
36% of 16 to 24-year-olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death, compared with 19% of over-55s
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6309983.stm 36% and 19%. Not exactly fringe numbers are they? And remember, these are British Muslims, not ones from Afghanistan or some other awful place! And what is the motive for such an awful belief if not their religion? So, no; I don't think it's bigotry to be concerned about the future of Western civilization given that some European countries may become majority-Muslim before the end of the 21st century. Just as it wouldn't be bigotry for me to be concerned about the growing influence of fundamentalist Christianity in my own country--the good ol' U.S. of A.
70
This is what Harris says, more or less. It's getting hard to tell just what you disagree with.
If that is all, then, again, it is nothing new. It is just utilitarianism, with all its known problems. Thinking science will help us in the future to solve value questions, is scientism.
I get so tired of the "scientism" cry. I too am weary of the "scientism" cry. It just seems like a conversation-stopper. It's like saying "Hitler did it!" And it seems to go hand in hand with accusations of "reductionism" and the quasi-mystical version of "emergent properties". People who make the scientism accusation often contend that certain systems (such as living systems) cannot be explained--even in principle--in terms of their constituent parts. They contend that since the parts do not have the qualities of the whole (e.g. the atoms that make up water don't have the quality of "wetness"), then the whole cannot possibly be explained in terms of its parts. This is nothing more than confusion and a lack of imagination. After all, the individual components of a mouse trap do not possess the quality of "mouse-murder-ness". If certain systems can't be explained in terms of their constituent parts, how on earth can they be explained? Can they be explained? It all sounds like a bunch of woo-woo to me. Also, scientism accusers often imagine that there are people who are so pro-science that they think it's stupid or worthless to bother learning about anything that's not scientific such as literature or art criticism. I've never met any of these people, either in person, online, or in print. Have you? Why do you think that center for inquiry categorizes subject matter? You have “Science and Technology" and then you have “Religion and Secularism". Most education programs do the same thing. The minute you took the sub-category “Science", the sub-category of proofing of mankind’s knowledge and tried linking it to the sub-category “Religion". A sub-category of domestication that is requires no proofing and is used more for filling desires and needs of the human race. That was the point that the conversation held a small percentage of success. All your points were great and true, but too many directions to go, just like the old creation verses evolution. Which was proof that mixing categories most of the time does not work no matter how logical they sound. Science and religion is an oxymoron.
71
Why do you think that center for inquiry categorizes subject matter? You have “Science and Technology" and then you have “Religion and Secularism". Most education programs do the same thing. The minute you took the sub-category “Science", the sub-category of proofing of mankind’s knowledge and tried linking it to the sub-category “Religion". A sub-category of domestication that is requires no proofing and is used more for filling desires and needs of the human race. That was the point that the conversation held a small percentage of success. All your points were great and true, but too many directions to go, just like the old creation verses evolution. Which was proof that mixing categories most of the time does not work no matter how logical they sound. Science and religion is an oxymoron.
For what it's worth, this discussion is in the "Philosophy" category, not the "Religion and Secularism" category. That being said, categories and sub-categories often times overlap. This is why Venn diagrams can be a great visual tool. Ethics and morality are usually shown to reside in both the religion and philosophy categories. But like health (and science itself), morality is usually thought of as being a goal-oriented concept. Once one thinks of morality in this way, it becomes clear that there are facts to be had about what methods are effective in achieving those goals. Like health and science, not everybody is going to be in 100% agreement about what those goals should be or how to achieve them, but that's no reason say that morality can't be approached scientifically.
72
Why do you think that center for inquiry categorizes subject matter? You have “Science and Technology" and then you have “Religion and Secularism". Most education programs do the same thing. The minute you took the sub-category “Science", the sub-category of proofing of mankind’s knowledge and tried linking it to the sub-category “Religion". A sub-category of domestication that is requires no proofing and is used more for filling desires and needs of the human race. That was the point that the conversation held a small percentage of success. All your points were great and true, but too many directions to go, just like the old creation verses evolution. Which was proof that mixing categories most of the time does not work no matter how logical they sound. Science and religion is an oxymoron.
For what it's worth, this discussion is in the "Philosophy" category, not the "Religion and Secularism" category. That being said, categories and sub-categories often times overlap. This is why Venn diagrams can be a great visual tool. Ethics and morality are usually shown to reside in both the religion and philosophy categories. But like health (and science itself), morality is usually thought of as being a goal-oriented concept. Once one thinks of morality in this way, it becomes clear that there are facts to be had about what methods are effective in achieving those goals. Like health and science, not everybody is going to be in 100% agreement about what those goals should be or how to achieve them, but that's no reason say that morality can't be approached scientifically. Yes, I agree with you. But if you think of science as the system of proof of the subject matter no matter what category, then subjects that require belief or faith and don’t require proof of subject matter then it becomes an endless circle of debate. I think man needed religion to have answers to questions that can’t be given an acceptable answer to mankind by science.
73
I think man needed religion to have answers to questions that can’t be given an acceptable answer to mankind by science.
Well, science is not that old that you can say that we needed religion to give these answers. Religion already gave such answers long before something existed that could be called science. Of course you know that these religious answers were ad hoc. They were methodologically unjustified answers. Some objective existence was postulated, some metaphysical world order, often with a creator God or many gods, that explained the world and at the same time were the base for a moral world order. Those who did not agree were marginalised, excommunicated, exiled, or executed. The basic figure of such religion is that the 'is/ought' gap does not exist: on the contrary, the supposed objective world order is used to derive the moral world order. The 'is/ought' gap is a modern, secular invention. I would even say that it is the basis for the secular state. Now it seems we have the same movement from objectivity to morality again, this time with science. There is nothing wrong with science as long as it is seen as what it is: our main tool to understand objective, observable reality. If we need facts, science is the place to go. But if we want to discuss values, a rational ethical discourse with my fellow humans is the way to go. If we need facts for this discourse, we know where to go, but that is the sole place for science in an ethical discourse.
74
Now it seems we have the same movement from objectivity to morality again, this time with science. There is nothing wrong with science as long as it is seen as what it is: our main tool to understand objective, observable reality. If we need facts, science is the place to go. But if we want to discuss values, a rational ethical discourse with my fellow humans is the way to go. If we need facts for this discourse, we know where to go, but that is the sole place for science in an ethical discourse.
What would a "rational ethical discourse" entail, if not discussions about facts? What kind of rational ethical system could you build without taking facts into account? I guess what I'm saying is, why do you consider rational (ethical) discourse to be mutually exclusive from science? Isn't rational discourse one of the foundations of science? To me, if you're engaging in "rational ethical discourse", you are in fact engaged in science in the broad sense that Harris discusses in The Moral Landscape. So it seems like, once again, we're really arguing over semantics rather than substance.
75
What would a "rational ethical discourse" entail, if not discussions about facts? What kind of rational ethical system could you build without taking facts into account? I guess what I'm saying is, why do you consider rational (ethical) discourse to be mutually exclusive from science? Isn't rational discourse one of the foundations of science?
Just imagine what the 'fact' is so that you are morally to do an abortion. Say the pregnancy was just an accident. Is the woman allowed to do it at: 2 weeks after she became pregnant? 3 Months? 6 Months? What is the fact that science can decide this? Or would you ask science about facts how the value you already have applies? And as another example (thanks to DarronS and StephenLawrence): if 'the greatest good for the maximum of people' is the criterion we assume to be objective: are we allowed to accept the risk of killing an innocent, say 1 out of 100, because his loss of 'good' is massively compensated by the 'good' of all the others? What kind of scientific fact would decide this question?
To me, if you're engaging in "rational ethical discourse", you are in fact engaged in science in the broad sense that Harris discusses in The Moral Landscape. So it seems like, once again, we're really arguing over semantics rather than substance.
Please explain succinctly what his 'moral landscape' entails. Or give me a link. I will not read Harris' book. PS I would say you are confusing 'factual' with 'rational'.
76
I think man needed religion to have answers to questions that can’t be given an acceptable answer to mankind by science.
Well, science is not that old that you can say that we needed religion to give these answers. Religion already gave such answers long before something existed that could be called science. Of course you know that these religious answers were ad hoc. They were methodologically unjustified answers. Some objective existence was postulated, some metaphysical world order, often with a creator God or many gods, that explained the world and at the same time were the base for a moral world order. Those who did not agree were marginalised, excommunicated, exiled, or executed. The basic figure of such religion is that the 'is/ought' gap does not exist: on the contrary, the supposed objective world order is used to derive the moral world order. The 'is/ought' gap is a modern, secular invention. I would even say that it is the basis for the secular state. Now it seems we have the same movement from objectivity to morality again, this time with science. There is nothing wrong with science as long as it is seen as what it is: our main tool to understand objective, observable reality. If we need facts, science is the place to go. But if we want to discuss values, a rational ethical discourse with my fellow humans is the way to go. If we need facts for this discourse, we know where to go, but that is the sole place for science in an ethical discourse. I admit that I am an arm chair follower of history. But I have to disagree with you on this point. In the last couple of years just about every timeline we have in history has been moved back in time, some by tens of thousands of years. An indication that we really knew very little about our past in a real common sense way. BdB, the oldest genesis story has man on earth before god. Then look at what god meant to the oldest stories. God, was a term for the collection of mankind’s knowledge. So man had to come before man’s knowledge. Did they know science? Well they knew that earth was created from stardust. They also said that mankind may never know what started life, and so far they have been right. Then you got god creating earth for mankind. Early man did create earth for mankind, earth was a hostile environment and the food was little. Now when you go to the store, just about all the food you get was domesticated by the people who understood god as the knowledge of mankind. Look at the early painting in the European churches. Jesus was always standing on a cloud omitting light. The cloud was the sprit (Holy Spirit), a collection of knowledge. And when the knowledge gathered it formed a gnostic cloud. And that cloud omitted light or knowledge. Upon seeing this the people knew Jesus was a teacher. The Egyptians knowledge was kept in the heart and was delivered in the form of sunlight. The point being, that mankind’s knowledge went backwards and religion grew in the period of time that science had died out. The point I am trying to make here is that early man, needed science, used science and understood science. Religion most likely evolved from science after a major plague or when mankind went on the extinction list in 74,000 B.C. and there was only from 500 to 5,000 humans left on earth. Now the philosophy and scientism people can play with words all they want. But until they can explain how 90% of the protein that is consumed in the world today came about in a real scientific way, they are just wasting time. Just look at the how fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains, fowls, cows and horses, just about everything we eat came about. It was not from religion.
77

Sorry, MikeYohe, but for me you are just wildly speculating. I will not go into an argument with you about this.

78
Sorry, MikeYohe, but for me you are just wildly speculating. I will not go into an argument with you about this.
Well, that is Mike's style, but it's pretty obvious and he admits it, unlike you who makes "ethical discourse" as if it is something definable, then just keeps presenting moral dilemmas as if they are unsolvable or can't be illuminated with scientific facts, and says therefore we need it.
79
Well, that is Mike's style, but it's pretty obvious and he admits it, unlike you who makes "ethical discourse" as if it is something definable, then just keeps presenting moral dilemmas as if they are unsolvable or can't be illuminated with scientific facts, and says therefore we need it.
You are missing a definition of 'ethical discourse'??? Woow. Well, ok, here it is, in 2 steps: 1. A rational discourse is a discourse in which people try to find a common standpoint, based on arguments. A discourse is principally endless: as new people may enter the discourse, circumstances change, new insights are won, etc, already established consensus might be discussed again. 2. An ethical discourse is a rational discourse about morality, i.e. people try to find common standards about what is morally justified to do under which circumstances. My standpoint which you try to ridiculise sarcastically, is that science can contribute facts to an ethical discourse, but not values. I never said we don't need science. Just try to answer the questions I asked here] about abortion or sacrificing innocent deaths. Maybe I should add another kind of discourse: 3. A scientific discourse is a rational discourse about factual truth. As this is a discourse about correct descriptions of objective reality, the strongest arguments given are based on observation and experiment. Mixing up ethical discourse and scientific discourse leads to all kinds of confusions, or in the worst cases, to misuse of power (as in in good old religions), or alienation of people of their Lebenswelt. The 'is/ought problem' is not a problem: it is one of the ground stones of secularisation and democracy. As an entry you can read this Wikipedia article on discourse ethics].
80
Well, that is Mike's style, but it's pretty obvious and he admits it, unlike you who makes "ethical discourse" as if it is something definable, then just keeps presenting moral dilemmas as if they are unsolvable or can't be illuminated with scientific facts, and says therefore we need it.
You are missing a definition of 'ethical discourse'??? Woow. I'm not missing anything. You are missing that "discourse" occurs within a scientific framework and of course it should be ethical, and "rational" is redundant. Sure, the "is/ought" problem is a foundation, as in, just because Europeans were ahead in the technological curve in the 16th century that didn't mean that they ought to go around shooting and enslaving people. But, if you say because we have survived based in large part on cooperation, that doesn't mean we ought to continue to cooperate, you' d be wrong, I can prove it on an etch-a-sketch. To do that proof, I would use the scientific facts of evolution.