You make a good point and there's some truth to what you say, but you need to see the point of view of others who view the world as being more complex and ambiguous. They also have a valid point of view.
You make a good point and there's some truth to what you say, but you need to see the point of view of others who view the world as being more complex and ambiguous. They also have a valid point of view.
When it comes to issues of morality/ethics, there is no gray area . . . and there is no black and white either, because there is no such thing as objective morality!
David Hume Fan wrote:
When it comes to issues of morality/ethics, there is no gray area . . . and there is no black and white either, because there is no such thing as objective morality!
Could you spell this out in a little more detail?
granny smith wrote:
David Hume Fan wrote:When it comes to issues of morality/ethics, there is no gray area . . . and there is no black and white either, because there is no such thing as objective morality!
Could you spell this out in a little more detail?
Knowledge should be based on either logic or observation. Statements based on observation are descriptive statements . Statements about what one should do are prescriptive statements. There is no clear way to go from a descriptive to a prescriptive statement, i.e. to make statements about ethics based on either observation or logic. So, prescriptive statements are of dubious validity. Some have referred to this problem as the "is/ought dichotomy." If you want further instruction, I would suggest you look into the works of the great Hume himself, or into those of Immanuel Kant or G.E. Moore.
David Hume Fan wrote:
Knowledge should be based on either logic or observation. Statements based on observation are descriptive statements . Statements about what one should do are prescriptive statements. There is no clear way to go from a descriptive to a prescriptive statement, i.e. to make statements about ethics based on either observation or logic. So, prescriptive statements are of dubious validity. Some have referred to this problem as the "is/ought dichotomy." If you want further instruction, I would suggest you look into the works of the great Hume himself, or into those of Immanuel Kant or G.E. Moore.
What's wrong with the following?
I observe that killing my neighbor brings a lot of needless suffering into the world. (observation)
Therefore, I shouldn't kill my neighbor. (prescription)
granny smith wrote:
David Hume Fan wrote:Knowledge should be based on either logic or observation. Statements based on observation are descriptive statements . Statements about what one should do are prescriptive statements. There is no clear way to go from a descriptive to a prescriptive statement, i.e. to make statements about ethics based on either observation or logic. So, prescriptive statements are of dubious validity. Some have referred to this problem as the "is/ought dichotomy." If you want further instruction, I would suggest you look into the works of the great Hume himself, or into those of Immanuel Kant or G.E. Moore.
What's wrong with the following?
I observe that killing my neighbor brings a lot of needless suffering into the world. (observation)
Therefore, I shouldn't kill my neighbor. (prescription)
It is either a descriptive statement dressed up as a prescriptive one, and assumes an unstated premise.
You say that you do not want to bring needless suffering into the world. Then say that if you don't want to do this, then you should not kill you neighbor. This is a descriptive statement.
You assume that it is bad to bring needless suffering into the world, i.e. something you shouldn't do. Why not? There is no way that you can say that one should not bring needless suffering into the world the same way you can say 2+2=4 or "the oak tree is 30 meters in height."
Now, as a practical matter, rather than just theorizing, this doesn't mean you should go hurt people, it just means that the real basis of morality/ethics is emotion, i.e. compassion. You don't kill your neighbor because you don't want to, not because there is some metaphysical law against it. Or you could go the religious route for justifying ethics.
David Hume Fan wrote:It is either a descriptive statement dressed up as a prescriptive one, and assumes an unstated premise.
You say that you do not want to bring needless suffering into the world. Then say that if you don't want to do this, then you should not kill you neighbor. This is a descriptive statement.
You assume that it is bad to bring needless suffering into the world, i.e. something you shouldn't do. Why not? There is no way that you can say that one should not bring needless suffering into the world the same way you can say 2+2=4 or "the oak tree is 30 meters in height."
Now, as a practical matter, rather than just theorizing, this doesn't mean you should go hurt people, it just means that the real basis of morality/ethics is emotion, i.e. compassion. You don't kill your neighbor because you don't want to, not because there is some metaphysical law against it. Or you could go the religious route for justifying ethics.
Hmm. I always thought that the upshot of Hume was that ethical laws had no a priori foundation and that therefore philosophers needed to justify them experimentally and experientially. Justification is not objective, if by objective you mean pre-existing and eternal. Justification is a matter of verification, not proof.
I guess I read Hume not as a skeptic, but as a proto-pragmatist more interested in criticizing absolutists and clearing the path for experimentalist reason than in promoting nihilism or the sort of emotivist subjectivism that you find in him.
Fed up wrote:
There's too much of it everywhere.
You are right. There is a lot of gray area. You acknowledge it in your post. You can cram everything into black/white because of laziness (it takes effort to think) or arrogance (you are so damn brilliant) but at least you do know that there are many shade of gray.
David Hume Fan wrote:
Now, as a practical matter, rather than just theorizing, this doesn't mean you should go hurt people, it just means that the real basis of morality/ethics is emotion, i.e. compassion. You don't kill your neighbor because you don't want to, not because there is some metaphysical law against it. Or you could go the religious route for justifying ethics.
It seems to me that compassion is not enough to cover the full scope of ethics. For many people ethics does more than just keep you from hurting other people, but also gives them a way to survive and grow.
Take the example of a good work ethic. It's not tied to any sort of compassion for others, and yet it is an 'ought' that helps a lot of people live richer lives.
To some extent, I think that I agree with you, but I think that the issue is more complicated than just, there is no objective morality.
The gray area: home of the cowards and democrat. The south will rise again.
I really am sick of the gray area between the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. I mean, seriously, if our two greatest theories of physics disagree, how am I supposed to live in my black and white world. F that. Maybe you can help bring me back to the black side?
Standing firm in your beliefs regardless of consequence doesn't make you a hero. It means you are rigid, bitter, and mentally lazy. The world is more complicated than you're willing to admit, which is a form of cowardice, in my opinion.
But go ahead and continue with your way of life. You will always be angry, frustrated, and more powerless than you realize.
?er wrote:
David Hume Fan wrote:Now, as a practical matter, rather than just theorizing, this doesn't mean you should go hurt people, it just means that the real basis of morality/ethics is emotion, i.e. compassion. You don't kill your neighbor because you don't want to, not because there is some metaphysical law against it. Or you could go the religious route for justifying ethics.
It seems to me that compassion is not enough to cover the full scope of ethics. For many people ethics does more than just keep you from hurting other people, but also gives them a way to survive and grow.
Take the example of a good work ethic. It's not tied to any sort of compassion for others, and yet it is an 'ought' that helps a lot of people live richer lives.
To some extent, I think that I agree with you, but I think that the issue is more complicated than just, there is no objective morality.
Certainly there are certain ways to behave that will generally make one happier - like doing good work, having good relationships with people, etc. Still, that doesn't mean that you "ought" to behave in these ways. Surviving and growing is thus more a question for psychology, economics, etc. than for metaphysics.
Sure, one's ideas of ethics are probably broader than compassion. That was just one example. I suppose it would be emotion more broadly. In the case of work ethic it would be your concern for yourself and your dependents - if you do bad work you will get along less well in the world and you and your loved one's will suffer. This is a fine way to behave, and I would recommend it. But there is still no way to say "you should do good work" as an objective statement, like 2+2=4.
Fed up wrote:
No, actually the gray area is the wishy washy area that is created by people who refuse to take a clear stance. Either something is right or it is wrong and I either think or feel one way or another, but not both. Difference of opinion is why there is a black and white area and I am fine with someone else thinking differently than I do so long as they stand firm in their beliefs and opinions. The gray area is for those who are either confused or don't have a backbone.
.
You mean people who understand nuance? People who are clearly your intellectual superiors?
This anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes
The New UncleB wrote:
Fed up wrote:No, actually the gray area is the wishy washy area that is created by people who refuse to take a clear stance. Either something is right or it is wrong and I either think or feel one way or another, but not both. Difference of opinion is why there is a black and white area and I am fine with someone else thinking differently than I do so long as they stand firm in their beliefs and opinions. The gray area is for those who are either confused or don't have a backbone.
.
You mean people who understand nuance? People who are clearly your intellectual superiors?
This anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes
Come to think of it, I actually like Hallmark. They make nice greeting cards.
Did you really think you were going to get away from me New UncleB? I am you and you cannot escape yourself no matter how hard you try...and, just in case you're wondering, I am that good with a computer. I'm too sexy for my joystick, Jeff, you skinny asian bastard!