↪Banno your short responses are an indication that you avoid diving in and challenging your preconceptions on the topic. — Nickolasgaspar
Example. It’s a fact that rape occurs in nature — among chimpanzees, for instance; and there are some evolutionary arguments to explain its existence in humans and non-humans alike. But this fact tells us exactly nothing about whether it’s OK to rape people. This is because “natural” doesn’t entail “right” (just as “unnatural” doesn’t necessarily mean wrong) — indeed, the correct answer is that it’s not OK, and this is a judgement we make at the interface of moral philosophy and common sense: it’s not an output of science.
I know you do not agree with this example, but do you understand it? That the argument is that there is an evaluation in between "Rape occurs" and "Rape is wrong"? — Banno
you'll find a decrease in oxytocin in a prisoner. — Isaac
Meh. They are an indication that I am eating dinner and watching the news. Maybe tomorrow — Banno
↪Nickolasgaspar
Cheers. GO back to this, if you would:
Example. It’s a fact that rape occurs in nature — among chimpanzees, for instance; and there are some evolutionary arguments to explain its existence in humans and non-humans alike. But this fact tells us exactly nothing about whether it’s OK to rape people. This is because “natural” doesn’t entail “right” (just as “unnatural” doesn’t necessarily mean wrong) — indeed, the correct answer is that it’s not OK, and this is a judgement we make at the interface of moral philosophy and common sense: it’s not an output of science.
I know you do not agree with this example, but do you understand it? That the argument is that there is an evaluation in between "Rape occurs" and "Rape is wrong"? — Banno
Do you understand the is/ought distinction?
DO you agree that there is a difference in kind between saying how things are, and how things ought to be? — Banno
well its a reoccurring pattern also observable in our previous interaction, so I am not so sure about that....but you can always falsify my hypothesis. Enjoy your dinner and "news" ..if that is possible by our modern media!. — Nickolasgaspar
Nature stays indifferent on the topic of our well being. We as agents that value our well being investigate which biological metrics enable the state of well being and what kind of behavior among peers in a society promotes it.
In the above framework , we don't have to assume agency in nature and the is/ought is only relevant to what we value and want for all the members of our society.
This is the only way our list of oughts can be evaluated....under a shared principle. — Nickolasgaspar
I mostly agree with you. However I would say that only the third point above is science. The third scientific point is dependant on the first two philosophical points to specify the values of the desired outcomes. — PhilosophyRunner
-We are in agreement on that...but for our philosophy to be valid it must be founded on Objective systematic knowledge (Science).It is the conundrum I faced as someone form a science background where eventually I had to accept that philosophy was required in order to specify what is valuable, which science can then investigate. That is how I ended up on this forum! — PhilosophyRunner
-Of course it can. Our disagreement doesn't make the principle or its metrics subjective! In order to understand how we value things we need to explain how our biology experiences our environment, how those stimuli produce affections and emotions and how we reason them in to feelings, values, meaning.Now if everyone agreed on the value of outcomes, there would be no issues. We would all just live happily ever after together. But the issue is people value things differently on the most contentious issues. You mention the shared principle - the problem comes when there is disagreement on what should be the shared principle. Science can't answer that question. — PhilosophyRunner
We need to reevaluate the methods we use in our correction facilities because they are against the well being of the prisoners.
That argument also favors the role of "well being" in morality. — Nickolasgaspar
In short our biological drives, urges and biology (homeostasis) have evolved in a specific way that force us through affections and emotions to strive for specific things and conditions. What we strive for is what we reason in to the concept of "value" — Nickolasgaspar
Talk about rigidity.
The point is not to lie. You seem to think the point is to have the conversation on the other person's terms.
— baker
No, I'm pointing to the fact that truth telling can kill people. If we ignore potential consequences we are a fools. — Tom Storm
The cure for all existential doubt and for all the distress that might befall the philosophically oriented is to not be philosophical, but to be superficial. That is, ignorance is bliss. So, if you wish to cure your wandering and confusion by refusing to look behind the fact that the goal you're pursuing actually has no meaning, I guess you could temporarily deceive yourself into thinking you had real purpose and that would get you through the day. — Hanover
The Nazi scenario is emotionally loaded, but grossly unrealistic. If you think a Nazi patrol looking for hidden Jews would simply take a person's word for gold, and move on after a No .. — baker
And the Nazi soldiers just took her word for gold?The Nazi scenario is not 'grossly unrealistic' - it happened to my grandparents in World War Two - German troops regularly went door to door asking locals if they had any information about Jews and/or resistance people in hiding. My grandmother also happened to be hiding people in her basement. — Tom Storm
You are still letting the other person dictate the terms.But this scenario applies to anyone who is asking you provide an answer to a question the true answer of which which could result in someone's harm. It's a simple way to dramatise the flaws in deontological approaches. Another good example would be a violent male asking if anyone knows the new address of his ex-partner who has fled his attacks. This comes up in my work a lot.
How is this relevant to my position???? — Nickolasgaspar
And the Nazi soldiers just took her word for gold?
This is what is so unrralistic about this scenario: that the soldiers would just belive people. — baker
That is NOT an ethical question...its a given since we know we have biological drives and urges that "force'' to survive and avoid suffering.Suppose I agree that we do see wellbeing. The ethical question is, ought we?
And this is what no amount of scientific evidence can address. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.