(September 6, 2012 at 3:50 pm)discordianpope Wrote: 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.
As stated before, I see no functional distinction between the two.
(September 6, 2012 at 3:50 pm)discordianpope Wrote: 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.
And why not? Both philosophy and science have come a long way since Hume.
(September 6, 2012 at 3:50 pm)discordianpope Wrote: 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.
He was talking about is-ought as applied to morality. I saw nothing in his arguments that it cannot be similarly applied in other fields.
(September 6, 2012 at 3:50 pm)discordianpope Wrote: 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.
To be honest, I don't think science would find the solution to the ethical problems. That's because I see ethics as a part of philosophy - not science. So, while it'd be informed by science, it wouldn't necessarily be determined by it. However, I still don't think we should rule the possibilities presented by the science of morality either.
