(November 14, 2018 at 10:45 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: JFC. WTFE. (I gave you good logic to present, and you ignored it.) You know who you are.
Quote:(1) A property P is genuine if it figures ineliminably in a good explanation of observed
phenomena.
(2) Moral properties figure ineliminably in good explanations of observed phenomena.
Therefore
(3) Moral properties are genuine.
Quote:The ability of putative moral properties to feature in good explanations is one perennially attractive argument in favour of the metaphysical claims of realism. The initially attractive thought is that moral properties earn their ontological rights in the same way as the metaphysically unproblematic properties of the natural and social sciences, namely by figuring in good explanatory theories. So just as, for example, a physicist may explain why an oil droplet stays suspended in an electro-magnetic field by citing its charge, or a social scientist may explain high levels of mental illness by citing income inequality, a ‘moral scientist’ may explain the growth of political protest movements or social instability by citing injustice. Likewise, just as an observer of the physicist may explain why he believes that the oil droplet is charged by citing the charge itself, and an observer of the sociologist may explain why she believes that income inequality exists by citing the inequality itself, an observer of the ‘moral scientist’ may explain why they believe that a situation is unjust by citing the injustice itself. In such cases, it appears that the instantiation of a moral property – injustice – is causally relevant in producing an effect – a political protest movement or moral judgement.http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1930/1/T...prints.pdf
BINGO!
And there you have it. Nobody is completely satisfied with a tautology.
Thus, it takes a second order explanation to avoid Tarski's undefinability theorem.
The physicist needs a quantum physicist to explain 'charge';
The sociologist needs an evolutionary biologist to explain 'inequality'; and
The ‘moral scientist’ needs a best-practivist to explain 'injustice'.
Although, to be more precise, a best-practivist is more focused on the proximate 'why'... one still needs an evolutionary biologist for the ultimate 'why'.
If anyone wants a best-practice explanation of morality, let me know. Consultant rates apply.
The PURPOSE of life is to replicate our DNA ................. (from Darwin)
The MEANING of life is the experience of living ... (from Frank Herbert)
The VALUE of life is the legacy we leave behind ..... (from observation)
The MEANING of life is the experience of living ... (from Frank Herbert)
The VALUE of life is the legacy we leave behind ..... (from observation)