Submitted by Ma3Ke4Li3 t3_ynt30e in philosophy
Reply to comment by eliyah23rd 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 hate listening to interviews (as opposed to reading) and generally find science's attempts to be philosophy laughable, however I'm going to touch on this part which I presume is somewhat accurate in depicting the interview:
>"If you want to know if something is wrong, ask the people". - This just shows what their preference is. It does not entail anything beyond their preference.
Preference utilitarianism is a thing. Fwiw my intuition is that right and wrong are ultimately rooted in preferences, even if preference utilitarianism has issues. My point, though, is that identifying preferences is a helpful moral endeavor.
>My point, though, is that identifying preferences is a helpful moral endeavor.
Totally agree. Your Value statement is preference utilitarianism, which might be non-congnitive (no true or false can be assigned), science determines the Fact and what follows is the Moral Claim that we should satisfy that majority preference. Science is critical, but it did not determine the Value.
[removed]
How is this circular or at all like Shermer? I don't believe it can establish what is moral on its own, just that it can be a useful process if you otherwise establish that preferences are part of morality.
[removed]
> On what grounds are you establishing that preferences are representative of morality? Why, on the grounds that our preferences are often moral!
Completely off-base and made-up. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I believe our preferences are part of the basis of morality for a variety of reasons which are beyond the scope of a discussion of the original post. I'm not going to get roped into a discussion of irrelevant minutiae. My suggestion was that if preferences are part of the basis of morality, the process of uncovering preferences is essential to morality. This is undoubtedly a true syllogism.
>generally find science's attempts to be philosophy laughable
For someone interested in philosophy, these words are very poorly chosen. Science cannot do things and Shermer doesn't represent science. (I suspect most scientists accept Hume's distinction.)
When I say "science's attempts to be philosophy" I don't mean science per se but rather people like Shermer or NDT who think they can plow ahead with science solving everything. It's a common viewpoint in STEM even if it's not scientific.
> It's a common viewpoint in STEM even if it's not scientific.
I think we have an example of a philosopher being out of their depth in a scientific matter. This is an empirical claim and you better have evidence to substantiate it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments