Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail Eris
So I guess you were playing devil's advocate in the relativism thread?
Yes, it's a good exercise to try and adamantly argue for positions you don't hold. I personally do think that there are universal moral truths in the same way that two is always greater than one, but I'm not a moral absolutist.
I'm still disappointed in how bunny hasn't seen the ontological category distinction between moral truths and mathematical truths, and how "murder is always wrong" is in a different category than "two is always greater than one". They cannot be compared solely on the basis that they are both universal truths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail Eris
I think this kind of thinking is extremely dangerous and it seems to lend itself easily to all kind of utopian totalitarian social engineering programs. But I actually agreed with more of that article than I thought I would, especially the bit about how scientific claims are value laden (e.g. coherency, consistency, parsimony, etc) and for that reason not fundamentally different from moral claims at a certain very basic level.
Morality and science may share the quality of making value statements, but one of the fundamental differences is that morality is intended to be guidelines for living your life. How your morals are define how you conduct yourself in life, including your interactions with others.
Scientific truths, unless they make direct claims on life guidelines (e.g., optimal diet and exercise), does not concern itself with things like whether you should be polite to people or be an *******.