Metaethics - Page 7

No, the point is that moral realism or anny other way to deduct morals do not and can not follow the scientific method at all.
But i guess thats why its called "meta" ethics

On July 29 2013 02:46 Rassy wrote:

Lets look at it from a practical point of vieuw.
Then it is clear that the human without anny moral limitations for their actions, has an advantage over humans who have some moral limitations for their actions.
Having morals and considering them to be "true" is a sort of phylosophic slavery.

On July 29 2013 03:03 gneGne wrote:


Would you really feel free in a society without any limitations whatsoever?

It would only lead to the domination of the strongest.

On July 29 2013 03:09 Rassy wrote:



Yes thats how society works, just look at america.
Off course there are limitations to what one can do, but they are all pragmatic.
If obama would do action A wich will result in a revolution in the usa, then he wont do that.
Not because it is morally wrong, but because it is not pragmatic and wont lead to the result he wants to.

On July 29 2013 03:05 WhiteDog wrote:

As another TLer (harlock78 two pages ago) stated "Mathematical object live in their own space". Moral on the other hand, has been defined (I should say is defined) and exist in our space, our society, and our time.

On July 29 2013 02:39 Shiori wrote:

Yes, but this is true of every belief. Hell, it even applies to the laws of logic. Most moral realists start from the notion that one or two axioms are basically self-evident, and then move on from there. Your issue with moral realism seems to be rather like objecting to the scientific method on the grounds that Hume totally deconstructed our ability to prove causality rationally. It's just one of those things we kinda take for granted as being true, because it seems like it has to be for anything to ever get done.

Seems kinda tautologic : I need to accept (or "believe") as an axiom that "something" exist beyond my own subjectivity that define and can tell objectively what is moral or not, to then see through logic that "moral statements" exists and are "true" outside of my own subjectivity.

On July 29 2013 02:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:

In your "for me" world, how do you reconcile slavery being moral with the fact that it violates the moral autonomy of the slaves?

On July 29 2013 02:14 gneGne wrote:


Well, if I may answer too, slavery is contradictory to human dignity, because it treats a person only as a means to a certain end. That is the difference between work and slavery, where work is with consent and slavery without.

On July 28 2013 04:03 farvacola wrote:

Before you get too comfortable in identifying with Sam Harris' work in ethics, have a look at this link.. At the bottom are more links to a variety of critiques of Harris. Suffice it to say, I don't find his ideas very appealing.

On July 29 2013 08:12 radscorpion9 wrote:


Wish I had responded to this earlier, but its nice to see the discussion that evolved out of this.

Thank you for the links, its nice to re-read the is-ought problem in clear terms, although I guess I'm already familiar with those arguments. But I would basically echo MCC's comments in that I can't imagine any other saner, more rational option for a moral philosophy than one in which the aim is to decrease suffering as much as possible, and if it can't be done for everyone, then to at least do it for the greatest number (utilitarianism). So if you assume that as your very reasonable starting point, then science can fill in the gaps.

Really what he's saying is quite obvious, because we do it all the time. Whether its deciding on the ideal economic system that serves the majority in the best way, the ideal prison system that will reduce recidivism by the highest degree, to how we should treat each other in relationships...all of these questions are answerable by science assuming that you agree with the initial philosophical claim that we should strive to be "happy" or "fulfilled". Perhaps those words are a bit nebulous, but practically speaking its rigorous enough that we can make enormous strides. Clearly these are not obvious questions either as your article suggests; for example economics can be very complex, and the consequences of choosing a particular system impacts millions.

But anyway, I do think that in the future science really will have something to say about morality. If we are just biological beings, than our moral feelings are really nothing more than a signal in our brains that are provoked by certain stimulus. If we can use neuroscience to analyze this, then we can clearly define what morality is in scientific terms. This will allow us to make at least a few claims concerning metaethics - for instance we can clearly show that expressivism in its simplest form "emotivism" is either true or false based on what we find in our brain. If our moral reactions do not stem directly from the emotional centers of our brain, then it is plainly false without needing to engage in any thought experiments.

So while we do not have a rigorous proof for it yet, I think its overwhelmingly likely, based on empirical evidence, that naturalistic moral realism is correct. After all what else could it be? Where else does our sense of "morality" come from except our brains? It must be based on biology and the laws of physics. So I think that science will help us explain what the "moral impulse" is in the far-flung future.

But as for what morality should be (as in the ideal moral system), assuming we find a way to alter our brains (perhaps through social conditioning or genetic engineering), I think that is entirely up for debate. But I find it seriously hard to believe that it will end up being anything other than maximizing happiness, which of course can be defined more specifically for certain people. Why "ought" we maximize happiness? Because it feels good, THAT'S WHY. lol

On July 29 2013 07:07 xM(Z wrote:

i see them both as varying degrees of slavery and i would argue that consent is imposed on you by certain social needs/requirements you'd have to adhere to. since consent is not given freely, you are still a slave.

On July 29 2013 08:12 radscorpion9 wrote:


Wish I had responded to this earlier, but its nice to see the discussion that evolved out of this.

Thank you for the links, its nice to re-read the is-ought problem in clear terms, although I guess I'm already familiar with those arguments. But I would basically echo MCC's comments in that I can't imagine any other saner, more rational option for a moral philosophy than one in which the aim is to decrease suffering as much as possible, and if it can't be done for everyone, then to at least do it for the greatest number (utilitarianism). So if you assume that as your very reasonable starting point, then science can fill in the gaps.

Really what he's saying is quite obvious, because we do it all the time. Whether its deciding on the ideal economic system that serves the majority in the best way, the ideal prison system that will reduce recidivism by the highest degree, to how we should treat each other in relationships...all of these questions are answerable by science assuming that you agree with the initial philosophical claim that we should strive to be "happy" or "fulfilled". Perhaps those words are a bit nebulous, but practically speaking its rigorous enough that we can make enormous strides. Clearly these are not obvious questions either as your article suggests; for example economics can be very complex, and the consequences of choosing a particular system impacts millions.

But anyway, I do think that in the future science really will have something to say about morality. If we are just biological beings, than our moral feelings are really nothing more than a signal in our brains that are provoked by certain stimulus. If we can use neuroscience to analyze this, then we can clearly define what morality is in scientific terms. This will allow us to make at least a few claims concerning metaethics - for instance we can clearly show that expressivism in its simplest form "emotivism" is either true or false based on what we find in our brain. If our moral reactions do not stem directly from the emotional centers of our brain, then it is plainly false without needing to engage in any thought experiments.

So while we do not have a rigorous proof for it yet, I think its overwhelmingly likely, based on empirical evidence, that naturalistic moral realism is correct. After all what else could it be? Where else does our sense of "morality" come from except our brains? It must be based on biology and the laws of physics. So I think that science will help us explain what the "moral impulse" is in the far-flung future.

But as for what morality should be (as in the ideal moral system), assuming we find a way to alter our brains (perhaps through social conditioning or genetic engineering), I think that is entirely up for debate. But I find it seriously hard to believe that it will end up being anything other than maximizing happiness, which of course can be defined more specifically for certain people. Why "ought" we maximize happiness? Because it feels good, THAT'S WHY. lol

On July 29 2013 09:09 gneGne wrote:


Consent is no real consent if its not self-imposed and this is what human dignity presupposes. In other words this human dignity doesn't mean much more than that I respect the other person as another person (equal). I don't see how this understanding of human dignity can work enslaving, quite the contrary actually.

And ofcourse we would have to analyse how or whether this actual self-imposed consent is possible at all within certain social regimes (aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, tyranny), but that perhaps is a somewhat different question or atleast for a later stage on how to realise human dignity.

On July 29 2013 08:12 radscorpion9 wrote:


Wish I had responded to this earlier, but its nice to see the discussion that evolved out of this.

Thank you for the links, its nice to re-read the is-ought problem in clear terms, although I guess I'm already familiar with those arguments. But I would basically echo MCC's comments in that I can't imagine any other saner, more rational option for a moral philosophy than one in which the aim is to decrease suffering as much as possible, and if it can't be done for everyone, then to at least do it for the greatest number (utilitarianism). So if you assume that as your very reasonable starting point, then science can fill in the gaps.

Really what he's saying is quite obvious, because we do it all the time. Whether its deciding on the ideal economic system that serves the majority in the best way, the ideal prison system that will reduce recidivism by the highest degree, to how we should treat each other in relationships...all of these questions are answerable by science assuming that you agree with the initial philosophical claim that we should strive to be "happy" or "fulfilled". Perhaps those words are a bit nebulous, but practically speaking its rigorous enough that we can make enormous strides. Clearly these are not obvious questions either as your article suggests; for example economics can be very complex, and the consequences of choosing a particular system impacts millions.

But anyway, I do think that in the future science really will have something to say about morality. If we are just biological beings, than our moral feelings are really nothing more than a signal in our brains that are provoked by certain stimulus. If we can use neuroscience to analyze this, then we can clearly define what morality is in scientific terms. This will allow us to make at least a few claims concerning metaethics - for instance we can clearly show that expressivism in its simplest form "emotivism" is either true or false based on what we find in our brain. If our moral reactions do not stem directly from the emotional centers of our brain, then it is plainly false without needing to engage in any thought experiments.

So while we do not have a rigorous proof for it yet, I think its overwhelmingly likely, based on empirical evidence, that naturalistic moral realism is correct. After all what else could it be? Where else does our sense of "morality" come from except our brains? It must be based on biology and the laws of physics. So I think that science will help us explain what the "moral impulse" is in the far-flung future.

But as for what morality should be (as in the ideal moral system), assuming we find a way to alter our brains (perhaps through social conditioning or genetic engineering), I think that is entirely up for debate. But I find it seriously hard to believe that it will end up being anything other than maximizing happiness, which of course can be defined more specifically for certain people. Why "ought" we maximize happiness? Because it feels good, THAT'S WHY. lol

On July 29 2013 16:58 xM(Z wrote:

you will never be able to distinguish between self-imposed and outside-imposed factors while living in a world based on an outside-imposed moral realism. the only dignity/equality you will be able to see is the equality among slaves.

or, OR!, you will always be a slave and the sam harrises of the world will teach you how to like it, how to be happy about it.

On July 29 2013 18:51 Rassy wrote:

"Would you say democracy is a façade?"
In general yes, there are situations in wich democracy is not a facade but thoose are verry small scale.