In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, 'is', and 'is not', I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an 'ought', or an 'ought not'. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last [i.e. most important] consequence. For as this 'ought', or 'ought not', expresses some new relation or affirmation, it is necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.
Our discussions about the world would indeed be entirely meaningless if there was no truth. — Banno
And as Hume points out, they are statements of a different nature. — Wayfarer
Everything I experience in discussion with another is a subjective experience, likewise for them. — Kenosha Kid
Sharing the humanist and rationalist outlook of the European Enlightenment of the same time period, the thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment asserted the importance of human reason combined with a rejection of any authority that could not be justified by reason. In Scotland, the Enlightenment was characterised by a thoroughgoing empiricism and practicality where the chief values were improvement, virtue, and practical benefit for the individual and society as a whole.
Among the fields that rapidly advanced were philosophy, political economy, engineering, architecture, medicine, geology, archaeology, botany and zoology, law, agriculture, chemistry and sociology. Among the Scottish thinkers and scientists of the period were Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Smith, Dugald Stewart, Thomas Reid, Robert Burns, Adam Ferguson, John Playfair, Joseph Black and James Hutton. — Wikipedia, entry on The Scottish Enlightenment
Adorno’s account of nihilism rests...on his understanding of reason and of how modern societies have come to conceive of legitimate knowledge. He argues that morality has fallen victim to the distinction drawn between objective and subjective knowledge. Objective knowledge consists of empirically verifiable ‘facts’ about material phenomena, whereas subjective knowledge consists of all that remains, including such things as evaluative and normative statements about the world. On this view, a statement such as ‘I am sitting at a desk as I write this essay’ is of a different category to the statement ‘abortion is morally wrong’. The first statement is amenable to empirical verification, whereas the latter is an expression of a personal, subjective belief. Adorno argues that moral beliefs and moral reasoning have been confined to the sphere of subjective knowledge. He argues that, under the force of the instrumentalization of reason and positivism, we have come to conceive of the only meaningfully existing entities as empirically verifiable facts: statements on the structure and content of reality. Moral values and beliefs, in contrast, are denied such a status.
It doesn’t matter how abstract and meaningless the word is, I’m still enjoying myself typing these very words.If everything is relative, than everything is crooked and there is no truth about what a person is, what he has done, and what he deserves. The world would therefore be entirely abstract and meaningless if there was no objective truth. Is this enough to prove relativism wrong? — Gregory
Alternatively, to see the truth of relativism, notice that truth is relative to conceptual schemes or discourses, but that these are fictions that need weaving from smaller ones and joining into bigger ones. — bongo fury
What does this mean?
Are you saying that when you look at the quote above, you are not seeing the same thing as I see? But there is a clear sens ein which wht I quoted above is what you wrote, so how could that be? — Banno
There's a philosophical approach that seeks to force a wedge between an inner self and an outer world, usually following this up with a diminution of the import of the outer world.
For the most part the dichotomy is false. We find ourselves embedded in the world and inseparable from it. — Banno
I think this is the objectivity error in a nutshell. Everything I experience in discussion with another is a subjective experience, likewise for them. Somehow we muddle through without any access to or necessary knowledge of objective truth — Kenosha Kid
An underlying issue is the fact-value dichotomy, or Hume's is/ought problem. — Wayfarer
Objectivity is just the absence of bias, — Pfhorrest
the juxtaposition of realism and idealism is itself an outcome of this same division between an internal mental world and an external physical world. — Banno
An underlying issue is the fact-value dichotomy, or Hume's is/ought problem.
— Wayfarer
That is definitely something that needs to be accounted for, but I see no reason why both types of question can’t be treated separately but equally. Both can be approached in an objective, critical, but open-minded (or “liberal”) way, adjudicating between different possibilities by appeal to the experiences we have in common with each other. — Pfhorrest
I don't see where this is clarified. One straightforward way to pose the same question would be to ask whether there are moral truths. I've yet to see anyone lay out what exactly we'd be losing by removing all talk of "objective" here and just asking whether there are moral truths (if there are moral truths, then moral relativism is false). — Enai De A Lukal
Is it true that Person A thinks incest is immoral? Yes, can he claim that it is moral truth? Yes. The question remains on whether he thinks that Person A believes his moral truth is a fact or a viewpoint.
You can attain your ‘inter subjective agreement’ through the whole process of experiment and observation. But questions of value are of a different order entirely; there’s no consensus on how to account for them. — Wayfarer
I don't think it matters whether committing murder is wrong for all humans. — Gregory
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.