(LONG) "I Don't Know" as a Good Answer in Ethics

[The Grand Nudger]

To ensure charitability I will simply quote the definition offered by Shafer-Landau: "The view that moral features are natural (i.e. not supernatural) features, whose existence can be confirmed by means of the natural sciences."

Okay

So, happiness can be gauged by the instruments of science. A scientist can measure the levels of serotonin and dopamine present in the brain. These are indicators of happiness. Therefore, a hedonist (for example) has a scientific observable thing to measure with its moral meterstick. Since the hedonist is measuring a natural phenomenon, that refutes premise 2.

Okay.

The problem is here that science fails to supply value here. Can science even supply value? Science can only verify if happiness exists or not. Science cannot verify that happiness is good.

If happiness -is- what a hedonist is referring to when they use the term "value".....then science has indeed supplied and verified a demonstration of value.  Exclaiming that science cannot verify happiness is good is question begging regardless of whether or not the hedonist who makes such a claim is correct in doing so.  Not only this, by any competent use of the term and understanding of the proposition it both can, and has.  

Mind you, I don't agree with the hypothetical hedonist in this....simply pointing out that, as stated, this isn't a cogent objection.

(the open question argument as proposed by Moore, by the by, actually is an argument over semantics. Notably exposed as such by a moral naturalist not needing to object to this argument in the first place. Perhaps moral virtues are not directly reducible to natural properties in some general sense...it's certainly no moral naturalists view that every natural property is a moral property...but it is their view that all moral properties have natural properties, and that associated moral properties have common natural properties.)

[vulcanlogician]

Exclaiming that science cannot verify happiness is good is question begging regardless of whether or not the hedonist who makes such a claim is correct in doing so.  Not only this, by any competent use of the term and understanding of the proposition it both can, and has.  

Then how DO you objectively verify that happiness is good? How is this question begging? Read premise 2: Science cannot verify values. It can verify things, but not values. Show me an example outside of ethics where science verifies a value.

[brewer]

Not really, it's already in that state today.  Somewhere in the world..right now (I guarantee this) someone is violently stealing somebody else's shit.  It doesn't take a catastrophe to diminish our moral agency or competency....and just as often a catastrophe can bring out the best in us.

So they are demonstrating the ethics (as they see them) in their environment. Sounds pretty self centered and also sounds like the stealing could be rationalized as self survival.

Catastrophe was just and example. Surprised I have to explain that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Science verifies values with regularity, exclaiming that it cannot verify a moral value is begging the central question of value in the framework of hedonism as it relates to moral naturalism.  If pleasure is value..can it be measured?

A more accurate expression of what is being communicated is that a person believes that while science can verify value, it can't verify -this kind- of value. Oh, well, golly, can/can't it?

---

So they are demonstrating the ethics (as they see them) in their environment. Sounds pretty self centered and also sounds like the stealing could be rationalized as self survival.

OFC it can be, but rationalizing stealing as survival is not rationalizing it as good or conforming to your ethics.  I would also steal to ensure my survival.  I call it "foraging"...lol.....but I would not think that the theft was a good way to ensure survival..merely what I had to do.  

Catastrophe was just and example. Surprised I have to explain that.

You don't..just pointing out the other side of janus' coin. We fear the worst from ourselves and our fellow man in that circumstance...and not for no reason...but we do have a regular habit of surprising ourselves and each other in the same circumstance.

[vulcanlogician]

I'm thinking about what you are saying. You've got me stumped.

---

Science verifies values with regularity,

Then why isn't there a consensus among scientists as to what these moral values are?

[The Grand Nudger]

There wasn't a consensus on the value of breathable air before 1772, or the value of water before 1812.  More than that, morality just hasn't been seen as a credible subject for scientific inquiry until recently, as in as recently as the mid to late 20th century..and in short order...there -has- been a consensus on the basis of moral value among interested researchers...for what that's worth.  Not that you can get a bunch of philosophers to agree.

(it's just not "happiness"    )

---

Hey, what was your refutation, by the by?

[vulcanlogician]

There wasn't a consensus on the value of breathable air before 1772, or the value of water before 1812.

I could beg to differ (among the ancient Egyptians there was a consensus on the value of breathable air, just in a practical sense; they simply didn't know the details) but that would be missing the point.

I could argue that science has discovered the "value" of chemical weapons. Science has discovered all kinds of ways to sear flesh and wipe out populations. If you're going to adopt this line of reasoning the road goes both ways, which takes us right back to nihilism.

[brewer]

Oh no, the big philo words are coming out. Which makes me out. Have fun you two. Let me know if either of you Amanda.

[vulcanlogician]

---

Hey, what was your refutation, by the by?

My refutation was that science cannot supply value. You reject it.

[The Grand Nudger]

My refutation was that science cannot supply value. You reject it.

OFC I do, because it can.  More accurately, you counter (for sake of discussion) that this -kind- of value may not be the kind of value that science can supply, and that this leads to nihilism.  It doesn't..even if it were true.  I was recently af-bumped by a fellow poster quoting a line I semi-stole from him......the notion that if a specific -kind- of value cannot be supplied than no value can be supplied.  This is patently untrue.  If a person insists upon begging this, then.... if I don't wish to argue, I can concede...and still say "meh, perhaps not the value you demand but value nevertheless".   In the case of hedonism, science can indeed,present the value of "happiness", and intrinsically so.... but if this does not satisfy you -as- value then hedonism does not satisfy you. By any competent use or understanding of both the chemicals involved or the proposition surrounding..that value is demonstrable and intrinsic.

Unsurprising, it doesn't satisfy me either. I consider it incomplete. I mention this so that it doesn;t become an isue of you thinking that I think you're wrong ( a pointless argument between us "I don't know" types, I'm guessing). I actually agree with you, just not for the same reasons.

(I thought you had a refutation of Moore in mind)