(September 6, 2012 at 2:34 pm)genkaus Wrote: The point was that you were wrong. You said that science doesn't deal with "oughts", it deals with what is. Clearly, it does. Later on, you changed it from "ought" to "instrumental ought". That is moving the goalposts.
Yeah, I was like totally wrong and a sneaky goalpost mover for thinking that we were talking about moral oughts and not instrumental oughts in a frickin discussion of morality.
(September 6, 2012 at 2:34 pm)genkaus Wrote: Unless, ofcourse, those values are factual. Your entire argument and subsequent distinction is based on the assumption that what we consider "values" cannot be factual, i.e. not have a basis in facts. But if they can, then the problem would simply go away.
Yeah it would. But they don't. It's the is-ought problem. You know, that thing Hume talked about. You can not get evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises.
(September 6, 2012 at 2:34 pm)genkaus Wrote: I've shown you how other sciences dissolve the is-ought problems within their scope. And saying how science of morality would do it would be empty speculation. By your response, it seems that you won't be satisfied until the there is some actual work done in it. So, I guess, you can just wait around.
Jebus Christ! I have explained why they don't dissolve the is-ought problem within their scope because it isn't an is ought problem! Hume wasn't talking about instrumental oughts. As for your blind faith that science will find a solution even though you don't know how it will be done, well.... I'm not a fan of blind faith.
