How can seperate the 'whole person' from its environment? And if we don't have 'free willpower our environment, how can we have it over ourselves? Does a dog, or am ant have this same seperated freedom from its environment? Or are we simply a process with the ability to reflect, but not change, that purpose.

I don't think the causation runs in that direction. I don't think one can philosophizing themselves to becoming a good person. I think that we only use philosophy to justify our bad actions or support oit good ones after the fact.

Chomsky a philosopher? Pft

I could take that compromise. I want to agree that they are not sufficient, but I can't seem to think of any knowledge that isn't merely a description of reality. Even prescriptive statements are descriptive.

Neat line of inquiry tho.

But the 'should' act, is in relationship to the 'description' of pain is it not? What is your decision based on if not the description?

That's what I mean by saying all our ought statements can only derive from is statements. And to the degree that science and knowledge generally can tell us about is statements, it can tell us about ought statements.

If pain in others doesn't spur action in you then we are not talking about the same thing. That is simply what I mean be morality.

You can't find a prescriptive reason why your own pain should spur action? How about because your a living organism and that's what living organisms happen to do.. and so far as I can see that that other person over there is as I am, viola we have morality.

To think that there is a distinction between what we choose, what happens to us is a fundamental flaw in western philosophy. We can move past it and loose nothing from morality.

How can one 'live in a oversimplified world' ? What would an undersimplified world look like?

Does pain not appeal to action? How is stating an imperative not stating a truth? We can't get ought statements without is statements. We can derive our ought statements inductively from our is statements and that'd all we need to act.

No one else is so confused about morality than a moral philosopher.

Morality arises from us being the types of creatures we are living in the type of universe we are living in. Science and philosophy both attempt to understand this predicament. Therfore both science and philosophy have something to say about ethics. Done argument over see ya later.

"Science cannot provide justification for the value clause". Why is this necessary? Isn't the justification simply that we want a better world as opposed from a worse one? And if you don't happen to agree then you're not really getting the whole concept of morality that we are all trying to understand. It's not deflationary of morality, it is what we mean when we say morality.

'Science can't justify Science, that doesn't make it unscientific.' Health can't justify we why want to feel better, but once we admit that we all want to feel better than we can have a Science of medicine. ' if someone comes along and says well I want to continually vomit and live in pain, he isn't offering an argument against the Science of medicine?

I fail to see that problem. To say that Science can't bolster our moral claims is absurd. What else could?

Science is simply our attempt to understand the world. If you want to base your morality off of something else such a religious dogma or whim go for it but you will be inviting suffering, I garuntee it.