My question here is basically about what you take those presuppositions to be. Are they radically different for the two sides, exactly the same for both (and if so what way are they like), or “separate but equal”. — Pfhorrest
Well Pfhorrest, what do you think? You asked if I care to elaborate. Was it just to antagonise Wayfarer? — counterpunch
what is considered true ultimately depends on our criteria for truth — Tobias
I'm asking what are your criteria for truth in these respective two domains (or one domain if your view falls into one of the second or third choices). It sounds like you use / advocate the use of science for descriptive questions. Do you approach prescriptive questions as a subset of that? Or in a similar but separate way? Or in a completely different way altogether? — Pfhorrest
In light of this, consider Hume's famous observation:
"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."
Putting aside the usual implication of this argument, it's what human beings do - and cannot help but do when presented with a list of facts. We see the moral implications of those facts. Facts are not a separate magisterium to us, because we are imbued with an innate moral sense, in turn a behaviourally intelligent, evolutionary response to a causal reality. — counterpunch
If you adhere to position number 4 - you have to presume some objective source of morality. So what is it? The Ethics tree? Lake Morals? The Shoulda River? Mount Ought? — counterpunch
On my view, there is just another additional question, which is not one of the cause of our capacity for moral judgement, but rather a “how to” question about the optimal conduct of that capacity. — Pfhorrest
I think the anthropic cosmological principle supports the attitude of natural theology. The fact that Dawkins, et al, need to appeal to the notion that there might be endless other universes in order to defray that argument rather serves to strengthen my view, rather than weaken it. — Wayfarer
To my mind, the organism evolves in relation to a causal reality, and has to be 'correct' to survive. — counterpunch
What is "correct", if not that the organism indeed survives? Is it that for you an organism ought survive? So your argument is that there is a universal moral obligation on living things to survive? — Banno
(My bolding)If it is not correct to reality it is rendered extinct. — counterpunch
Replication begins with DNA unzipping down the middle, and attracting its chemical opposite from the environment. This is the basis of a truth relation between the organism and reality that plays out on every level; the physiological, the behavioural, and for us - the intellectual level. — counterpunch
the reason [Dennett] imputes to the human creatures depicted in his book is merely a creaturely reason. Dennett's natural history does not deny reason, it animalizes reason. It portrays reason in service to natural selection, and as a product of natural selection. But if reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? The power of reason is owed to the independence of reason, and to nothing else....Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it. — Leon Wieseltier
A 'realist criterion' for truth, if I may say so, discerns what is (proximately) true by matching a truth-claim to a truth-maker (i.e. fact of the matter and/or valid inference) – like turning a key in a lock – and thereby mismatches indicate non-truths. I suggest that adaptivity (for FLOURISHING, not mere 'survival') is a heuristic criterion for deciding on 'criteria of truth'.I am not a realist like you, I am an idealist, meaning that what is considered true ultimately depends on our criteria for truth. — Tobias
If "there are no criteria by which to judge criteria of truth", then we cannot decide whether or not it is true that "there are no criteria [ ... ]", no? This sort of arbitrariness (e.g. relativism, nihilism, anti-realism) isn't adaptive outside of very narrow, parochial, niches (e.g. academia).There are no criteria by which to judge those criteria, since that would lead to an infinite regress.
Another nice polemic. — Banno
But you still have not confirmed or rejected my assessment that you think living things have a moral imperative to survive. — Banno
As you say, Chimps remember who contributes in these ways, and withhold their favours accordingly. Ought they do so? — Banno
But further, ought they do so if and only if it ensures survival? — Banno
Is you claim that organisms have a moral imperative to survive? — Banno
The human organism, yes. — counterpunch
The problem with that, again, is that if the 'biological determines the intellectual', then it undermines the sovereignty of reason. If reason depends for its validity on biological adaption, then what warrant does it have to be true? If you explain that warrant in terms of adaptation, then you're relying on the very faculty for the explanation, but at the same time, reducing it to an adaption instead of something inherently true. — Wayfarer
Ah. Good. So "the human organism"(individual, species, genetic code...?) has a moral imperative to survive. Why? — Banno
After the occurrence of life, intellectual intelligence is only the second qualitative addition to the universe in 15 billion years. We, who look back at the universe from which we spring - and understand, would diminish the universe by our absence. We ought to follow in the course of truth, and survive - and find out where truth leads. Intellectual intelligence should play out to the fullest. — counterpunch
I do not find you an honest or reasonable debater. You are only out to shoot down these ideas; whether from personal enmity, or philosophical conviction - I don't know. I've asked you to explain your convictions, and you've refused, repeatedly - and I refuse to debate at a disadvantage with someone pursuing a concealed agenda - and willing to misrepresent my argument to further that agenda. If you can find where I've written the phrase 'the biological determines the intellectual' - ever, anywhere - I'll eat my hat. Otherwise, I shall decline to address your deliberate misunderstanding. — counterpunch
Obviously you don't understand my criticisms, but I assure you, they are not made in bad faith. — Wayfarer
Morality, as I've explained, is a sense... — counterpunch
If you can find where I've written the phrase 'the biological determines the intellectual' - ever, anywhere - I'll eat my hat. — counterpunch
"The moral sense is a consequence of the truth relation between the organism and a causal reality — "counterpunch
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.