Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DeeJayXD t1_ivc0mfo wrote

Reply to comment by jiimmyyy 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

How could you ever get an ‘is’ statement without ‘ought’ statements to dictate what you accept as evidence?

4

jiimmyyy t1_ive9bjr wrote

I would use reason to determine what I accept as evidence.

0

DeeJayXD t1_ivewz7w wrote

As well you should; but, that just proves my point.

2

jiimmyyy t1_ivex4yk wrote

I thought your point was to show that I need an ought to inform the answer?

0

DeeJayXD t1_ivey70d wrote

Yes.

Reason operates by the use of complex series of ‘ought’ statements—standards, biases, criteria, etc.—to discern what is acceptable; the appeal to reason itself rests on the claim that, in our selection of evidence (or just in general), we ought to be reasonable.

2

jiimmyyy t1_iveyjlc wrote

Oh that's interesting.

My response to that would be - yes, we ought to be reasonable because it is the case that we (or at least, I) value reason.

2

DeeJayXD t1_ivf0lsd wrote

Good riposte; but, does that argument not depend on the claim that our actions ought to be consistent with our values?

There’s also a good discussion to be had there exploring the question of why you/we value reason (and whether we ought to do so), just as an aside.

2