It makes something which is fundamentally human and tries to make it mechanical. Morality is a matter of human values. — T Clark
And the best approaches seem to be in and through reason. — tim wood
denial of the possibility of any standard — tim wood
Here is an expression of a personal view and two claims. Any argument? — tim wood
You get from an ought to an is via a hypothetical syllogism. — tim wood
. If you want Y, then you ought to do X. — tim wood
And I've been over this more than twice. Per Mortimer Adler: If you do X, then you can get Y. If you want Y, then you ought to do X. — tim wood
If you're prepared to argue that there are no values that are universal - and demonstrate it - then I'll concede and leave you be. — tim wood
But I find your arguments reductionist past animal to the insect. — tim wood
One reason why the Papacy rejected Martin Luther's epistemic defense at his trial, in which he wanted to review the arguments mechanically, "through scripture and reason", is because the Papacy very much prefers the system of a living magisterium: — alcontali
Re the other claims, it's a matter of there being zero empirical evidence for there being any extramental normative values, any extramental moral stances, etc. — Terrapin Station
if the benefit is one that I ought to have, — tim wood
You don't think there are genetic or biological factors in human behavior, including how we treat other people, e.g. mothers and fathers protecting their children? — T Clark
Cardio-vascular fitness? Simple exercise? The lady who gets naked in her window every night at seven o'clock? The ice cream store at the other end? — tim wood
Are you making the case that a more rational approach to morality is less corruptible? I don't necessarily disagree with that, although I don't think it changes the basic nature of morality. — T Clark
Are you making the case that a more rational approach to morality is less corruptible? — T Clark
Even with geometry there is non-euclidian geometry, and, in fact the latter has turned out to be useful in describing reality in science. So even what seems utterly clear and objective is actually not universal in geometry.The insight - one insight - I find in it lies in the usage of "universal" and "absolute." This usage, I suspect, is not in your usual understanding. As I read your post, it seems to me that you're arguing that there is no "Euclid's Elements" of morality/ethics; that is, no axiomatic theoretical development. And thus nor you nor I nor anyone else can argue morality/ethics more geometrico. — tim wood
It's as if you sought an external criteriological standard from logic or science, — tim wood
I don't think so. Because if have one that is something like 'Don't unnecessarily cause people to suffer' the word necessarily carries with it the potential for a wide range of other values. And that's with a kind of consequentialist value. IOW even if eveyrone on earth is a consequentialist, which they are not, they are still going to potentially think that axiom is true, but apply differing ideas around necessarily. And since they include deontologists, we will have people who will not even evaluate using the same processes, let alone coming from the same axiom. They will be disturbed by having an adverb, for example. Or by evaluating in terms of pain.If there is one, any, universally held value, then the whole field comes into view. — tim wood
Fortunately, as I pointed out above, people ignored precisely that conclusion and found useful math that also, even, applies to the real world. Hyperbolic geometry is more effective, for example in three dimensions, and in specific situations, like when working with the surface of a sphere, like he world. Euclidian is more useful when dealing very locally and especially in two dimensions. But beyond that it seems that Einsteing found that hyperbolic genometry is the case at relatavistic levels of scale, where space is actually curved.You can deny these, and the enumerated rights that follow from them. You can deny them. And you can deny that the angles in a Euclidean triangle sum to 180 degrees. If you do, no geometrician will pay you any mind. — tim wood
I can only suppose that is because you have confused the nature of geometry with morality/ethics.. — tim wood
It wasn't the harshness, which I took as aimed at the idea, not at him. It was the conclusion. Even if we do not think there are objective or universal values, this need not lead to insect like relations. In fact morals have often led to insectlike behavior, because they have often been used to justify not feeling empathy for people. And because even with being able to say these values are he ones that can be demonstrated to be the right one's objectively, one need not be like an insect, since one has facutlies and tendencies that insects do not have.Fair enough, I was harsh in reference to Terrapin, — tim wood
I was claiming that your argument did not lead to the conclusion you were making.None of this is about that at all! But since you have made the claim, and anyone can make any claim, then make your case, because Hitchen's guillotine (razor) awaits. — tim wood
If it is the case that if I go to X-the bakery then I can get Y-apple pie, then if I want Y-apple pie, then I ought to (go to) X-the bakery. — tim wood
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.