Carl seems to have gotten past this: which is good, since he has *never* been a moral subjectivist, but thought he was (a common state among moderns).
PREMIUM: Ethical Knowledge via @lotuseaters_com
PREMIUM: Ethical Knowledge via @lotuseaters_com
@lotuseaters_com It’s a premium podcast and I’m not a premium member, so I didn’t see the whole thing, but it looks like he’s also starting to bump into the Moral Argument for God.
Give him a few more years and we’ll see.
Give him a few more years and we’ll see.
@lotuseaters_com On naturalism, one could claim a “thin” kind of moral objectivity, namely, that there are things that are naturally good for human beings, but one cannot capture NORMATIVITY.
People who laud things like “human well-being” have NOTHING to say to one who doesn’t care about that.
People who laud things like “human well-being” have NOTHING to say to one who doesn’t care about that.
@lotuseaters_com They can NEVER get further than one of Kant’s HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVES:
"IF you want such-and-such, THEN you ought to do so-and-so.”
Kant held, rightly, that this isn’t morality AT ALL, that morality proper requires a CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: “Do [not do] such-and-such!”
"IF you want such-and-such, THEN you ought to do so-and-so.”
Kant held, rightly, that this isn’t morality AT ALL, that morality proper requires a CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: “Do [not do] such-and-such!”
@lotuseaters_com The hypothetical imperative, the "IF you want such-and-such, THEN you ought to do so-and-so,” is by its nature always vulnerable to “I don’t want such-and-such” or “I want something more than such-and-such” or “I don’t give a damn about such-and-such”.
@lotuseaters_com "IF you want such-and-such, THEN you ought to do so-and-so” also can’t explain the universal in scope of ethics.
Machiavelli’s The Prince is an extended discussion of IF you want such-and-such [to rule], then you ought to do so-and-so [have your enemies killed].
Machiavelli’s The Prince is an extended discussion of IF you want such-and-such [to rule], then you ought to do so-and-so [have your enemies killed].
@lotuseaters_com Even if the goal is one which would be ethically laudable, such as “human well-being”, there’s simply no OBLIGATORY REASON to choose “human well-being” over e.g. “the well-being of me and mine”, “my nation”, “my race,” etc.
@lotuseaters_com This is why NATURALISM cannot supply an ethics.
It always needs a non-naturalistic ethical axiom or two, which is smuggles in, and THEN in can get going. But this is trick and an Achilles’ Heel.
It’s also a Feynman’s Painter fallacy:
It always needs a non-naturalistic ethical axiom or two, which is smuggles in, and THEN in can get going. But this is trick and an Achilles’ Heel.
It’s also a Feynman’s Painter fallacy:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
