> That is very silly. How would a descriptive fact about the world (e.g. what is of evolutionary adaptive advantage for humans) ground an objective moral 'ought'?
We are basically talking about different things although we use the same words (descriptive vs normative sense). It's basically defining words (like "ought" in the context of objectivity) and drawing conclusions. Calling my line of thinking "silly" shows me that there is a chance that I didn't specify the semantics in a way that they make sense for you in that context.
Parent asked
> Are you arguing we can root morality in objectivity?
And I hinted at the possibility that you could use certain scientific insights to build a framework which uses a certain kind of objectivity (which depends on your definition of objectivity - here I use it for scientific thinking).
If this fits someone who is scientific-minded (it certainly isn't enough for me to be a sound framework, so I agree with you that making descriptive facts a foundation for ones' morality is definitely lacking in some important qualities), this line of thinking can be used by that individual to say "I think morality has roots in objectivity".
I'm not stating my opinion here, it's more about arguments that could be used by individuals who want to have this kind of framework for themselves. I definitely see the limits in this (like you), but I was just trying to answer the question from a different angle.
Basically I was talking about people who could say things like "There is no god, we haven't seen him and the meaning of life is to reproduce" - scientific-minded people who elevate descriptive aspects so they become the foundation of their belief system. For them, there certainly can be morality in objectivity with those aspects (psychology, game theory) - although you and I don't have to agree with that because it may look one-dimensional to us.
edit: I found that perspective interesting because there are people who call themselves scientific-minded who dismiss the possibility that morality has roots in objectivity, so I found it worthwhile to show this angle.
We are basically talking about different things although we use the same words (descriptive vs normative sense). It's basically defining words (like "ought" in the context of objectivity) and drawing conclusions. Calling my line of thinking "silly" shows me that there is a chance that I didn't specify the semantics in a way that they make sense for you in that context.
Parent asked
> Are you arguing we can root morality in objectivity?
And I hinted at the possibility that you could use certain scientific insights to build a framework which uses a certain kind of objectivity (which depends on your definition of objectivity - here I use it for scientific thinking).
If this fits someone who is scientific-minded (it certainly isn't enough for me to be a sound framework, so I agree with you that making descriptive facts a foundation for ones' morality is definitely lacking in some important qualities), this line of thinking can be used by that individual to say "I think morality has roots in objectivity".
I'm not stating my opinion here, it's more about arguments that could be used by individuals who want to have this kind of framework for themselves. I definitely see the limits in this (like you), but I was just trying to answer the question from a different angle.
Basically I was talking about people who could say things like "There is no god, we haven't seen him and the meaning of life is to reproduce" - scientific-minded people who elevate descriptive aspects so they become the foundation of their belief system. For them, there certainly can be morality in objectivity with those aspects (psychology, game theory) - although you and I don't have to agree with that because it may look one-dimensional to us.
edit: I found that perspective interesting because there are people who call themselves scientific-minded who dismiss the possibility that morality has roots in objectivity, so I found it worthwhile to show this angle.