The Propositional Nature of Values and Valuing

My response to ConferenceReport's "No value without sentience (and vice versa)."
http://youtu.be/pQxt9fBGsAs

Category:

Education

Tags:

• value
• sentience
• rationality
• philosophy
• feeling
• emotion
• mind
• conferencereport

[LudditeReturns]

Great video. It is unfortunate that evaluative claims are often linked to the affective realm without even questioning the strength of this proposed link.

[DanaGarrett]

@LudditeReturns Well said. That is a big problem. Another is the failure to ponder the noetic significance of evaluative claims being claims. 

[DanaGarrett]

Thanks for the welcome back. I'm going to try to post at least one video a week from now on.

[JonPaulPrime]

Seem to come back to the concept of morality. The morality of any given value can be complicated if one does not rank value according to evolution. Intellectual value must therefore be at the top -- the highest value. Biological value -- that is, our bodies and the bodies of others, clearly has value. Lots of categories. Social value (without which, we'd still be fending for ourselves in the wilderness). Inorganic things can clearly have value also -- values which SERVE the maintenance of mind.

[DanaGarrett]

@JonPaulPrime Don't see how inorganic things like rocks can have values.

[pacifiedfools]

BOOOOORRRRRRRIIIINNNNNNNNNNGGG­GGGGGGGG

[LudditeReturns]

@Hamandchees3

You're correct and I apologize for being an asshole. I shall expound in text as time allows. At school right now and must be off. I appreciate the correspondence. Be back asap.

[Hamandchees3]

@LudditeReturns

I'm not a logical positivist. How about actually making a counter-argument? Non-naturalism is the closest realist position to noncognitivism. Chances are we agree on a lot so I see no reason for any hostility or dismissiveness.

[LudditeReturns]

@Hamandchees3

Lol. Unverifiable? Jesus, this is cavemen logical positivist crap. ARRRGGG!!!!

[Hamandchees3]

@LudditeReturns

You've still failed to establish the truth conditions for any moral statement. Instead you've created red herrings. A noncognitivist believes statements of value are unverifiable. What other criterion do you appeal to to test the validity of moral propositions, or to decide between conflicting values? Intuitions?

This is a bad medium for philosophy. Im at theham88 at gmail.com if you wish to continue. If not lets recommend reading. Language Truth and Logic and Quasi-realism

[LudditeReturns]

@Hamandchees3

affirmations and negations? Smacks of the genetic fallacy. And you have unnecessarily bifurcated the states of affairs and the moral properties relative to them involving torturing babies. And, one need not have demonstrative justification for a belief to be epistemically justified. And you mention circular presuppositions, this poses no sui generis problems for the moral realm. Sense perception and the empirical realm is in the same boat and universal skepticism defeats itself

[LudditeReturns]

@Hamandchees3

Look brotha, I can't help it if you aren't familiar with even the most basic lexicon relative to philosophy and the philosophy of ethics; when you go around asking someone to 'show me a moral proposition that's truth apt,' it's bound to cause a certain level of pause and reflection on whether or not continuing conversation with you is worthy of one's time. How does our having "essentialist brains" negate the fact that moral discourse often unfolds via propositional

[Hamandchees3]

@LudditeReturns You can't be serious. One of the claims of quasi-realism is that moral attitudes are expressed as if they were propositions because we have essentialist brains. You have to do a better job than be a smart ass.

As for torturing babies for fun. Is it the torture or the fun part that's wrong? If martians came to earth how would we prove it to them without circular presuppositions. Or for psychopaths?

I don't disagree that torturing a baby is wrong. It's just not factually true.