Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

eliyah23rd t1_iwbp46x wrote

Reply to comment by ConsciousLiterature 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 hope you don't mind these delays in my replies. I've been ruminating in the meantime.

My list for B was actually a disjunctive list (facts OR reason-logic OR higher being). So rejecting one of the list does not mean that B is wrong.

But it doesn't really matter. Let's pretend I only gave the "higher being" option and so you don't agree with B.

You seem to say that you accept that there are people who believe B but you believe in A. (Option 1 in the second set of questions).

Preferring A to B is a philosophical position, is it not?

(On the other hand, I may have misunderstood you. Are you arguing for B after all? Does the emergent phenomenon you are referring you actually justify the value? I continue to assume that you don't hold that, but I wanted to raise the possibility just in case.)

1

ConsciousLiterature t1_iwewoxa wrote

>Preferring A to B is a philosophical position, is it not?

I don't think so. I mean maybe the word "prefer" makes it a philosophical issue but the core issue is a scientific one. Many people "prefer" a flat earth theory but whether or not the earth is flat is a scientific question.

> Does the emergent phenomenon you are referring you actually justify the value?

It is a description of what value is or means. You have some value or another because some electrochemical reaction is taking place in your brain. That's what I believe. I don't think you have a "choice" in your values because "you" are just an emergent phenomena from from atoms interacting with each other.

2

eliyah23rd t1_iwfm99o wrote

Fair enough. Thank you so much for this little chat.

1