(July 27, 2019 at 10:40 am)Acrobat Wrote: Let’s work with this analogy here.
If I have two apples and acquired two additional apples, I’ll have four in total.
So when I say 2+2 = 4, I am indicating something descriptive.
Now when someone says it’s wrong for me to keep/ steal your wallet, it’s not merely descriptive, they’re not just trying to tell me about the physical consequences of doing so, all of which I could be well aware of, but something prescriptive as well, they’re saying I ought not steal.
Do you believe that statement that I ought not steal is objectively true, as 2+2 = 4?
Suppose I am moral nihilist, who believes there’s nothing truly right or wrong about anything, that there’s nothing morally wrong about me stealing your wallet, what facts am I denying here?
So what if someone figures out the truth? Does that give them the right to tell others what to do? Can you get an ought from an is?
It all comes down to wisdom. The fact is, 2+2=4. Maybe you ought to steal the wallet; it depends on the circumstances. But whatever the circumstances, 2+2=4. We can agree on that, right?
What is hard to explain to people is that once you figure out the equation... once you solve for x... you will also know whether you should steal the wallet or not. It isn't a matter of whim. It isn't a matter of opinion. You ought or you ought not steal the wallet. A wise man will deduce the correct answer and do the correct thing. The fool will do something else.
This doesn't make morality subjective or fictional. Let's say you are taking a math exam and one of the problems is: 8 + X = 9. Anyone can tell you that X=1, right?
But is this statement true?: You ought to answer X=1 to that particular problem.
Is that so unreasonable? X=1 is the right answer. The question is: why ought I give the right answer? Or in moral terms: why ought I do the right thing?
No law of nature is stopping you from answering X=300. But let's ask ourselves: what law of nature is keeping the answer from being 300. None. There is no such law of nature. The reason that the solution is X=1 has to do with logic... with reason.
Objection: Sure, the answer is X=1 (descriptively), but that doesn't necessarily mean I ought to give that answer. What if my math professor fails students who give correct answers on exams? Wouldn't it then be REASONABLE to answer something other than x=1? In that situation, one might argue, one ought to answer something else, right?
Sure, if you want to pass the math exam given to you by your contrarian math professor-- yes, you ought to answer something other than x=1. But that doesn't make the math problem subjective. If you want to be right, you will answer X=1. Likewise, with morality, if you want to be right you will not steal the wallet.
Plato is one of my favorite philosophers because he recognizes that there really is no difference between the descriptive and prescriptive. To Plato, people aren't immoral because they are inherently shitty. They are immoral because they lack the information to make correct choices. To Plato, once you have proper knowledge, the only thing left to do is "solve for x" and x will unfailingly tell you what you ought to do.
Of course, it's more complicated than that. Human beings aren't calculators. They're hungry and--sometimes--angry animals. According to Plato, there are three parts to the human soul. And each struggles to dominate the other two. And the one part that is capable of correctly "solving for x" is the smallest (and most easily overwhelmed) of the three.
Long story short: x hardly ever gets solved for correctly. It's a huge clusterfuck. Society ends up being run by the contrarian math professor types who reward wrong answers (like I spoke of before). And most people end up thinking that you can't really solve for x. To them, x is a matter of personal preference. Or maybe, if you can convince large numbers of people that x equals nine, then x may as well equal nine. Right?
Wrong. Nihilism is false. X can be solved for. And, in any given moral situation, we can do the right thing. There are variables at work. Sometimes the right thing to do is steal the wallet. But that's rare. Usually that isn't the case. Usually it's stuff like returning the wallet to its rightful owner that's the right thing to do (aka the right answer). But, in any case, there is a right answer, an objective answer, and all it takes is a little figuring out.
