(July 21, 2010 at 4:02 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:PR Wrote:Yeah, but that is a choice for a specific moral goal.
But if moral is defined as "better well being" and "less suffering" then there are factual matters about that.
So when you say it's a choice for a specific "moral" goal, what do you mean by "moral" goal if you don't define moral as above?
Harris also argues that science has to appeal to specific values or "goals" in order for science to be done too.
Is "right" and "wrong" in the natural world? The beliefs people have about morality are in them and they are part of the natural world. So how are there concerns or values not a matter of the natural world and not a matter of fact about what is "good" and "bad" for them and others?
EvF
I can see what you're both saying. What Purple Rabbit is saying is that the idea that pain is bad and pleasure good is not scientifically verifiable. Once we have accepted this premise, however, EvF is right that we can use empirical facts to determine what is best to do.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
