RE: (LONG) "I Don't Know" as a Good Answer in Ethics
November 21, 2017 at 8:13 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2017 at 8:44 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(November 21, 2017 at 8:04 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Describe moral naturalism as you see it, and why you reject it?
(I would alter the initial premise, if I wanted to make a -strong- case in the same vein, but more easily justified..to: "If science cannot verify the existence of x, then we do not have good reason to believe x exists".)
Give me some time. I came up with my own refutation, which I will share, but G.E. Moore's refutation of moral naturalism puts mine to shame. Look that up if you're impatient.
(November 21, 2017 at 8:04 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Describe moral naturalism as you see it, and why you reject it?
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."
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.
The problem is: 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.
