Recent comments in /f/philosophy

SlowJoeCrow44 t1_ivbn8xu wrote

Reply to comment by theo_radical in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Does pain not appeal to action? How is stating an imperative not stating a truth? We can't get ought statements without is statements. We can derive our ought statements inductively from our is statements and that'd all we need to act.

No one else is so confused about morality than a moral philosopher.

−7

theo_radical t1_ivbjrx1 wrote

Reply to comment by SlowJoeCrow44 in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

> Science cannot provide justification for the value clause". Why is this necessary? Isn't the justification simply that we want a better world as opposed from a worse one?

No. That is not the justification. That introduces the concept of "better" before it has been agreed upon.

The justification needs to explain how science, which provides a descriptive explanation of how morality evolved in human beings, entails a prescriptive statement of how humans ought to be. Morality is not simple stating truths, it's imperative. Something must appeal to action.

9

theo_radical t1_ivbium9 wrote

Reply to Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Is/ought is relevant because, sure, morality as described as a human phenomenon aims at protecting certain evolved desires, but science can't prescribe morality. It can't tell us whether or not we should have those desires.

20

eliyah23rd t1_ivbij84 wrote

Reply to comment by Socrathustra in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

>My point, though, is that identifying preferences is a helpful moral endeavor.

Totally agree. Your Value statement is preference utilitarianism, which might be non-congnitive (no true or false can be assigned), science determines the Fact and what follows is the Moral Claim that we should satisfy that majority preference. Science is critical, but it did not determine the Value.

3

eliyah23rd t1_ivbh3bg wrote

Reply to comment by stoppedcaring0 in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

I would never argue that there *is* not anything beyond their preference. Only that it does not *entail* anything *beyond* their preference. Of course, if you put them in an fMRI, you could see the details that lead them to express their preference, but as far as I can see, that is besides the point.

2

PaxNova t1_ivbc6em wrote

Reply to comment by stoppedcaring0 in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

That would just mean there's a biological imperative towards certain actions. An appeal to nature would not mean it is objectively moral.

Plus, these things change over time. Ask people what they think of gay marriage now versus fifty years ago. If the people truly determine what is moral, then it was morally wrong fifty years ago.

14

iiioiia t1_ivb97q4 wrote

Reply to comment by UmbralAdam in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

> Intentionally harming others is ubiquitously considered bad by any moral framework worth its salt.

"worth its salt" smells tautological.

7

WakaTP t1_ivb8xke wrote

Reply to Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

I think what he means is science can help us understand what is good for us, what will make us happy, what we SHOULD want, and in that regard help us define values.

It makes sense and definitely true but that is not exactly a true moral system,

4

iiioiia t1_ivb8li1 wrote

Reply to comment by eliyah23rd in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

> Science can provide insight into the Fact clause here. Therefore, Science helps us determine the claim.

How many scientists can realize that there are at least two problems here: the meaning of the words "is" and "wrong"?

How many people might form incorrect beliefs (say, a simplistic and inaccurate model of the complexity/truth) as a consequence of science's (potential) mishandling of such discussions (due to not having the necessary background knowledge, and not being able to realize it as a consequence)?

14

Socrathustra t1_ivb8je5 wrote

Reply to comment by eliyah23rd in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

I hate listening to interviews (as opposed to reading) and generally find science's attempts to be philosophy laughable, however I'm going to touch on this part which I presume is somewhat accurate in depicting the interview:

>"If you want to know if something is wrong, ask the people". - This just shows what their preference is. It does not entail anything beyond their preference.

Preference utilitarianism is a thing. Fwiw my intuition is that right and wrong are ultimately rooted in preferences, even if preference utilitarianism has issues. My point, though, is that identifying preferences is a helpful moral endeavor.

8

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ivb84t9 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

Wizzdom t1_ivb7xx4 wrote

Reply to comment by eliyah23rd in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

I think science can be useful for studying what makes people happy/content and what causes the most harm/suffering. In that way, science can help direct your moral framework to actually achieve the greatest good. I agree science can't/shouldn't dictate what that framework is.

28

Cpt_Folktron t1_ivb7ia9 wrote

Reply to comment by contractualist in Objective Reality and Subjective Experience (explaining two very separate worlds) by contractualist

Empirical testing means that hypotheses (predictions based on causal models) are confirmed or denied by carefully designed tests (the test design isolates causality).

The only reason you can't imagine such a test for, for example, the existence of goodness, is that you have already precluded the possibility. Your tautology doesn't allow it (because you treat your definitions as axiomatic, you can only arrive at conclusions that verify what you already belief).

But, if what you say is true, there either are no sufficient tests for the existence of goodness—and/or there are tests that would verify the relativity of goodness (i.e. we can confirm that we are free to create our own subjective evaluations independent of an objective reality, where free means that there would be no misunderstood or misrepresented causal relationships, the misrepresentation of which would become clear as the "real" world acts in a way that denies the validity of the evaluation).

I think you haven't even tried to test your idea.

So, I'm saying to you: Go out into the world and test it. Is goodness real, independently real, transcendentally real, objectively real, as real as sunshine or gravity? Don't base your conclusion on anecdotal evidence or axioms. Test it.

2

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ivb5vzv wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ivb5hbc wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ivb5e6c wrote

Reply to Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1