jiimmyyy

jiimmyyy t1_iveyjlc wrote

Reply to comment by DeeJayXD 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

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

jiimmyyy t1_iveczlj wrote

Reply to comment by Thedeaththatlives 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

The question that underpins the ought/is distinction is "how could you ever get an ought from an is?" Or more concretely, "you can't get an ought from an is."

1

jiimmyyy t1_ivecwpn wrote

Reply to comment by Velociraptortillas 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 disagree, because whatever ought you go with is ultimately going to be determined by underlying facts of the matter.

For instance, your first example - if you decide that you ought to take your shoes off and go jumping in puddles, then that decision is going to be predicated on is statements.

I ought to go jumping in puddles because it is the case that I'd get more enjoyment out of that than the other options, and it is the case that I value my enjoyment more highly than anything else right now.

0

jiimmyyy t1_ive9ivv wrote

Reply to comment by Collin_the_doodle 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

People disagreeing on something doesn't get you to there being no facts about it though. This seems like a non-sequitur to me.

I'm not sure you've really addressed my question. Perhaps you could give an example?

1

jiimmyyy t1_ive9f2q wrote

Reply to comment by Velociraptortillas 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'm not sure what an ought is in this context then. I thought an ought statement would be something like "you ought not drink sea water".

Could you give me a better example?

1

jiimmyyy t1_ivbrwhy wrote

Reply to comment by Collin_the_doodle 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

What else could be used to inform an ought statement other than something which is ultimately a type of fact?

−4