RE: Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?
October 14, 2018 at 5:44 am
(This post was last modified: October 14, 2018 at 5:50 am by vulcanlogician.)
But the point is that IF morality is objective THEN we can make coherent statements about it using logic. We can have the debate about whether autonomy, wellbeing, desire satisfaction (etc.) is essential to morality using a logical framework. Otherwise, it would all boil down to subjectivity... one's personal tastes... one's cultural assumptions etc. Ethicists like to think that they are talking about something real when they do moral philosophy. Ask a utilitarian (like Peter Singer) if he thinks he is merely supplying opinions on morality.
One sort of "proof" that there are moral facts is that every branch of ethics suffers from problems. Philosophers all agree that there is no "one brand" of ethics that is not problematic, even proponents of specific ethical theories admit that their own theory has problems. If it was a matter of opinion, they could just be like "fuck off, this is the way I like my ethics." But that's not how it is. There are plenty of "tests" of moral facts in ethics. But nothing like science. They are more tests of logical coherence and/or departure from our intuitions.
Of course, philosophy is all about questioning things, and "are morals objectively real at all?" is a question that some have asked. Philosophy has room for moral realists and moral skeptics. I respect the moral skeptic's position, even though I'm a realist. There are good arguments on both sides.
From where I'm coming from, I'm not trying to be of 'practical use' when I posit that morality is objective. I'm coming at the question like a philosopher, that is, somebody who is trying to understand the fundamental nature of reality. We can do "practical good" whether or not we agree on this one philosophical point. That's not the issue. The issue is: what is true? Is morality objective or not?
One sort of "proof" that there are moral facts is that every branch of ethics suffers from problems. Philosophers all agree that there is no "one brand" of ethics that is not problematic, even proponents of specific ethical theories admit that their own theory has problems. If it was a matter of opinion, they could just be like "fuck off, this is the way I like my ethics." But that's not how it is. There are plenty of "tests" of moral facts in ethics. But nothing like science. They are more tests of logical coherence and/or departure from our intuitions.
Of course, philosophy is all about questioning things, and "are morals objectively real at all?" is a question that some have asked. Philosophy has room for moral realists and moral skeptics. I respect the moral skeptic's position, even though I'm a realist. There are good arguments on both sides.
(October 14, 2018 at 5:16 am)robvalue Wrote: There will be people who don’t agree, but calling them factually wrong is of no practical use whatsoever, as well as being inaccurate.
From where I'm coming from, I'm not trying to be of 'practical use' when I posit that morality is objective. I'm coming at the question like a philosopher, that is, somebody who is trying to understand the fundamental nature of reality. We can do "practical good" whether or not we agree on this one philosophical point. That's not the issue. The issue is: what is true? Is morality objective or not?
