(September 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm)discordianpope Wrote: Yeah, I know what the is ought problem is. Which is why I was confused when I thought you were saying there wasn't an is-ought distinction, but you seem to be admitting that there is one now, so no worries. The goal strategies you mention only work within a framework of aristotelian teleology. They require a final purpose. Without the teleology there is no way to distinguish between competing oughts. The institutional facts approach has feck all to do with "scientific morality".
On the contrary, teleology seeks to apply a purpose and by extension an ought to all things. The goal strategies would work fine even outside the teleological framework. As for the competing oughts, that'd would be one of the problems for the science of morality to solve.
(September 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm)discordianpope Wrote: As for the psychology/biology stuff, well, what can I say, I assumed that you thought facts about our psychology are facts about our brains, and hence our biology - I apologise, I'll try to remember that you are a dualist from now on.
I'm not a dualist and not everything in psychology reduces to a biological function.
