Thread: Dreamviews philosophy subforum sucks balls (so let's talk meta-ethics)

Depending on how you define evidence, I could agree with that. It also depends on how you define "guide." Science is still merely one tool-kit available, and there's no proof it's the only worth-while tool-kit that can stand up to epistemological relativism. Whatever you think about abstract truth, you are claiming that the argument "science is the only worthwhile philosophy" (paraphrased) is true. You are claiming it's true that science is better than non-science. There is no proof of this.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You are claiming it's true that science is better than non-science. There is no proof of this.

Why do you need evidence?

My argument is that there is no evidence that can make something true. My argument is that we believe things, but we don't believe true things. You believe that science is the only relevant philosophy. But believing it doesn't make it true, nor matter how logical. You can claim you're disinterested in abstract truth all you want, but you just made a claim for an abstract truth. And there isn't a reason behind the reason behind the reason for that claim. In the end all, all evidence is circular.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

My argument is that there is no evidence that can make something true. My argument is that we believe things, but we don't believe true things. You believe that science is the only relevant philosophy. But believing it doesn't make it true, nor matter how logical.

I agree, science never claims to possess absolute "truth". It just seems to be the only way toward sensible objective descriptions of whatever experience is and whatever it is experiencing.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You can claim you're disinterested in abstract truth all you want, but you just made a claim for an abstract truth.

What do you mean by abstract "truth"?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

And there isn't a reason behind the reason behind the reason for that claim. In the end all, all evidence is circular.

Explain this differently please?

Well, if you claim to know that a particular epistemological doctrine is correct, that's circular.

Why can't you just know it intuitively? We're kind of all born scientists in a way. We develop a feel for what's functionally true based on the weight of evidence, scientists just continue to explore.

Originally Posted by wayfaerer

why do you need evidence?

lol

Originally Posted by Abra

So anyway, let's discuss the sexiness that is moral error theory, which basically makes the claim that all positive moral claims are false.

According to moral error theory:

"Killing babies is morally permissible" is false.
"Eating animals is wrong" is false.
"Altruism is good" is false.

"Killing babies is not wrong" however is a negative moral claim, so it isn't necessarily false. It could be true or false.

One major objection to moral error theory is that this leads to contradictions.

According to moral error theory, "killing babies is morally permissible" is false. And "killing babies is wrong" is false. That would make the opposite claim true, i.e. "killing babies is not wrong" is true. This is linguistically equivalent to saying "killing babies is morally permissible" is true. But, fuck, we started out this argument by saying that very statement is false. This contradiction means moral error theory is shitty, right?

WRONG-O, turns out that objection is invalid.

"That which is not wrong is morally permissible" is a positive moral claim, so under moral error theory this statement would be false. That means "killing babies is not wrong" is not logically equivalent to saying "killing babies is morally permissible." So there is no contradiction, and moral error theory stands hard as a rock.

Discuss.

Well, if I look at reality I see what this philosophy is saying. It is saying basically that morals are not true inherently. Each person individually and society as a whole designates truth to morals. I would like to believe that there is some true objective morality that everybody should follow (and it should be my morality ) but the fact is that it seems morality is subjective. It seems that everybody decides what is right for them, and tries to impose that onto everyone else. So the fact is that morality is subjective, and thus not true in the philosophical sense.

If we get hung up on the words it leads to contradictions. That is why philosophy has to be grounded in direct experience of reality. That is why in reality there is no contradiction. Nobody is saying you should go kill babies. This is just a statement of reality... obviously some people feel that it is moral to kill babies.

A positive moral claim would be saying "X is good" is true. For something to be true, in the philosophical sense, it has to be objective and inherently real, like a law of nature like gravity or something, or the speed of light. But since morals are not objective, they are empty of substance, empty of any coherent definable agreed upon ultimate reality, morality is empty. No moral statement is objectively inherently true. There might be a situation where it is morally acceptable to kill a baby, like to save a hundred babies lives somehow.

My cognitive apparatus tells me that things with mass are pulled down to Earth. My brain tells me that the sense data I'm receiving is to be interpreted as an object falling downwards.

My cognitive apparatus tells me that killing babies is wrong. My brain tells me that the sense data I'm receiving is to be interpreted as a moral violation.

What's the difference?

The emptiness philosophies can really deconstruct our preconceived assumptions as to what is 'true' and 'false'. Even these concepts of 'true & false' are deconstructed. In order to stay grounded we avoid the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism. When looked at in this light, we see that morality and immorality are both empty, dependent on many conditions to exist, and there is no tangible or unchanging morality. Any moral claim is 'false' because if we analyze it we find that it is empty. But to claim the opposite is true is also false because the opposite is also 'empty' of inherent reality. To claim one or the other is true would be to err into either of the two extremes of eternalism or nihilism.

Not sure that that answers the question.

Your question? Isn't your cognitive apparatus the same as your brain? What is the difference? I am not sure I understand the question, but if I do: What ever you decide is moral is what you decide is moral. But that doesn't make it 'true' or 'false'. It is what feels right for you and that is great, but it is empty of inherent meaning, no matter what your cognitive apparatus is. The cognitive apparatus and the brain and babies, etc... all empty. So... there is no difference. But there is no relavence either. Just avoid the extreme views of nihilism and eternalism and do what feels right. Gravity, mass, earth, objects falling, philosophy, it is all empty. Any connections of meaning or difference in meaning is also empty and arbitrary and even if it is rich in meaning perhaps the meaning does not go past this present moment and is not inherent in there being a difference or correspondence between your two statements. If you think there is a difference or if there isn't a difference, it doesn't ultimately matter for what you think or what I think are empty of meaning. So....

That being said, on a relative level morality and physics are different as well... What if I had the power to rescue either only one baby or 99 babies from a burning building? I think it would be moral to let the one die to rescue the 99. Morality is empty. It isn't constant.

I don't know if that answers your question?

Well, in the post before I asked the question, you said that truth could be asserted of physical laws, but not moral laws. I was asking why the difference.

I never said that truth can be asserted of physical laws and that does not represent my view. Physical laws are just as empty as moral laws.

Edit: Oh that reference to gravity and the speed of light. Yes, I misspoke, those are empty as well. They are not free-standing inherently existent independently. Gravity depends on mass, for example. Light is a transient continuum of particle waves... etc....

But there still is a relative difference between physical laws and moral laws.
And now your question makes sense to me, and it is an interesting question now.
It depends on what relevance you give subjectivity in comparison to objectivity
or if you have a non-dual view.
If you have a subjective solipsist view, then there is no difference.
If you have a materialist view then gravity is a law of physics while morality is a convention of society.
If you have a nondual view, they are both interdependent and are united but different.
I am getting sleepy, don't know if I am articulating this well.