(November 21, 2017 at 7:45 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Thus the value of deontological ethics. No need to work anything out in the heat of the moment. Refer to the list.
@refuting error theory, give us a specific formulation to work with.
I don't get what deontological ethics has to do with metaethics. Anyway, here is Russ Shafer-Landau's rendition of the argument from the scientific test of reality:
(from The Fundamentals of Ethics)
1. If science cannot verify the existence of X, then the best evidence tells us that X does not exist.
2. Science cannot verify the existence of objective moral values.
3. Therefore, the best evidence tells us that objective moral values do not exist.
Logic is sound. The only argument against premise 2 that I was shown is moral naturalism. I reject moral naturalism. It's an extremely hard sell for me. I might have some budge-room with premise 1. What do you think of the argument?
