The 'Facts' of normativity. A failed argument against MetNat.

[benjammin221]

ENUNCIATE!!!!!

[Cashify]

Why call reason good? There is neither good nor evil in reality.

[2tires]

I enjoyed hearing what you had to say although it comes from a different world view than mine. I don't get this... if moral facts don't exist, how would you classify natural selection in the sense that you have this weeding out of the weak so that the strong prevail. This process seems to have been stopped at least as far as humans are concerned. Hitler may be the exception but then he seems to be scorned even by evolutionists for his evil. Why then is this so if there are no moral facts?

[bitbutter]

"Why then is this so if there are no moral facts? "

Are you asking "why has human evolution stopped if there are no moral facts?". If so, i don't understand why you think the two things would be related.

Also: There's no reason to think that evolution in humans has stopped. Google "has human evolution ended?" for more details.

[2tires]

I was asking if the are no moral facts then what is the reason for those in the atheistic community largely oppose Hitler's atrociousness during WWII?

Also I googled "has human evolution ended". I read where scientist are split on whether not ppl are still evolving.

[bitbutter]

"I was asking if the are no moral facts then what is the reason for those in the atheistic community largely oppose Hitler's atrociousness during WWII?"

Because most people's moral feelings (shaped by a combination of societal and biological factors) tell them that what the Nazi's did was wrong.

The Nazi policies can also be opposed on a instrumental level; we can recognise that we don't want to live in a world in which things like the final solution happen.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

Thanks for this great refutation

I must say that your conclusion really hit the mark, namely, that Veritas48 didn't defend or support either of his premises in any meaninglful way

Unfortunately, I have found this to be an all-too common trick of theists. They confidently pronounce their premises then do their best to distance themselves from said assertions as quickly as possible in a sad attempt to avoid any scrutiny of them. Only a fellow theist allows this b/s to go unchallenged

[Jargonification]

Hiltler's evolution to put it briefly, wasn't evolution, it was a queer form of Lamarckism which was the earlier theory that challenged Darwinian Natural Selection. Lamarckism insisted that evolution takes place during ones own life time, v. generation and genetics, you have "genes" or "proteins" that actively evolve to suit an actors current behavior. It also took a heavy focus on breeding or Soft Adaption principles developed years before either Lamarckism or N.S.'s conception.

[Jargonification]

Couple of quick observations:

Define "moral" or "good" where it would not be subjective or a tautology.

Natural Selection /= total descriptor of Evolutionary theory

Evolutionary theory /= prescribe action

Evolutionary theory == describe action

Because Manifest destiny lead to the greatest empire in earths history, most advancements, best health, etc. etc., does this prescribe for them to kill 20 million Indians? Do you really think that way?

On going human evolution see:genetic drift.

[Jargonification]

You win one free Internet, sir!

[bitbutter]

Great!

[facilisdescenus]

(from your argument from physicalism)Some people get brain and organ damage and cannot see or hear the external world properly or hallucinate.

And evolution is only a defeater for moral beliefs of you are already committed to met. nat.. And if you hold this you will also have to hold that evolution is a defeater for ALL of your epistemic intuitions (like your intuition of mathematical truths and such). I think you are going to end up with an untenable skepticism if you are consistent .

[bitbutter]

There was no argument from physicalism, i was noting that the idea that moral facts don't exist, fits perfectly well with what we know about evolution and about our brains.

[facilisdescenus]

Couldn't the same kind of argument be levied against anything?

I have a strong intuition of my experience of the external world. However my intuitions are unreliable so I'm probably a brain in a vat.

Some people hallucinate and are colorblind and so have disagreements about the external world. Therefore all of us are wrong and there is no external world.

[bitbutter]

"I have a strong intuition of my experience of the external world. However my intuitions are unreliable so I'm probably a brain in a vat."

Your analogy doesn't work because you missed out an important part in the case I made against justified belief in moral facts--the implications of strong moral intuitions coupled with the fact of moral disagreement.

[vickmackey24]

nice rebuttal

[bitbutter]

Cheers vickmackey24.

[Rotwang49]

Thanks from the video, a clear and effective commentary.

[bitbutter]

You're welcome, Thanks in return.

[dade7sreel]

Veritas48,

Excluding pretentious speeches influenced by religious financing or religious conviction, given a break from all debates concerning collective religions on a whole, are all arguments lessened in content or are they made to be more open? Also, what range does a counter debater remonstrant emotional standoff per intended conflicts? Especially when that debater is well aware of the esteem issues associated with all other individuals' modes of influence?

[dade7sreel]

Veritas48,

According to believers statements, religious conflict, due to intolerance towards individual rights, is separate from the faith, prayer and belief system.

[bitbutter]

Glad you liked it PostITnoteGuy.

[Hooya2]

Very thorough, well thought-out, intelligent, and well spoken, I agree 100%, but it is rather dull. You aren't a very energetic speaker.

No offense intended.

[bitbutter]

Thanks, and no offense taken.

[mavaddat]

Nice video, bitbutter. However, I think you're mistaken about nihilism, if I may say so. You seem to assume that without categorical moral facts, that nihilism follows. But this seems invalid to me. A robust moral framework can be built atop instrumental morality (hypothetical imperatives), which will have "facts" of morality insofar as people have desires.

Viz., "If you want x, then you ought to do y" produces the objective fact "you ought to do y" in the face of "I want to x".

[bitbutter]

hi mavaddat. My moral nihilism doesn't depend on the implausibility of categorical imperatives alone; as well as this, i think that all attempts to interpret moral facts as something other than absolute universals fail to capture the sense in which moral discourse is actually used.

In other words, when we say "killing babies is wrong" it's far-fetched to claim we really mean "killing babies will result in societal disapproval", or anything like that.

[mavaddat]

I agree with you that absolute universals are implausible, but I don't think we need to impugn moral realism because many people think them integral to the existence moral facts. I'd much rather retain moral realism and impugn those people for their misunderstanding. After all, our discourse treats oughts as if they were factual. It would be convenient if we could retain this language without having to apologize for it.

[bitbutter]

"After all, our discourse treats oughts as if they were factual. It would be convenient if we could retain this language without having to apologize for it."

I think we can retain the language, through fictionalism. But we need to acknowledge, when we're doing philosophy, that its subject probably doesn't exist.

[mavaddat]

That's a divide between common usage and philosophy that I'd rather not erect. In my view, philosophy "should" stick to common usage as much as possible. In the struggle to resolve the tension between the absoluteness of normative facts and their objectivity (as suggested by common meaning), I choose to abandon the absoluteness, whereas you seem content to abandon their objectivity.

[bitbutter]

"That's a divide between common usage and philosophy that I'd rather not erect."

I see no problem with it. We already employ a variety of useful fictions that we understand as such in our most critical moments. Some examples; suspension of disbelief in literary appreciation, newtonian physics, the idea of free will. I think that the imagined existence of moral facts fits with this group.

[mavaddat]

It appears to me that our situation is symmetrical, bit. I allow that absolutes are a useful fiction while maintaining the actual truth of imperatives whereas you give up the truth of imperatives to maintain their intended absoluteness.

[bitbutter]

Yes. I think it's a disagreement about what it's intellectually acceptable to 'do' with moral discourse.

[mavaddat]

Thanks, bitbutter. I enjoyed your video and I appreciate your thoughts.

[LennyBound]

:-)

[bitbutter]

8-D

[Dhorpatan]

Bitbutter, you look like Moby. It's a pretty strong resemblance.

[bitbutter]

I hear that more often, it doesn't help that I spend a lot of time busy with electronic music either.

[SpookyFan]

Clearly laid out. Well done.

[bitbutter]

Cheers spookyfan.

[riversonthemoon]

Well done!

[bitbutter]

Thanks!

[Cafeeine]

I used the hammer example in a comment for this subject yesterday! Should I be getting ready to sue for plagiarism?

Just kidding of course, Good response.

[bitbutter]

If you have a hammer example, everything looks like a nail ;)

[RyuDarragh]

Methodological Naturalism, a Politically Correct term for Scientific Method.