This doesn’t contradict anything that I said? I don’t think you understood my point. Empiricism claims that knowledge is derived from sensory experience. You can’t though know what you are experiencing is true; to do that (according to empiricism) you would need to experience that your experience is true but that also would require experience, so it’s self defeating. Contradicting past experience, unexplained phenomena, etc. is irrelevant.
‘I occupy a point in space-time’ is calculable (let’s just assume that for simplicity). That doesn’t prove anything. You are making the same mistake that stems from empiricism; that for anything to be knowledge it has to be derived from experience. That’s just demonstrably false, for example ‘all bachelors are unmarried men’ we know that is true, but not from conducting an empirical study of bachelors, but by definition. That applies to mathematics and geometry; ‘A triangle’s angle always adds up to 180 degrees’. In those cases we make assumptions (not derived from experience) that what we are saying is just true, no empirical evidence comes into it. It works though, because it’s logically coherent and explains our reality. And if it did neither of those things, like fail to account for large amounts of phenomena, or be logically contradictory, then we couldn’t use it as an assumption.
We use the same reasoning in morality: if morality is loosely the question of ‘how should we live?’ then it’s seems pretty obvious that an assumption like ‘everyone suffering the most pain possible isn’t how we should live’ is true by definition like ‘all triangles have 3 sides’ is true by definition, and it works to have those definitions because it corresponds to our reality when we do observe it, and it also doesn’t contradict any other logical position.
The discussion over what constitutes ‘necessary’ isn’t the issue, that was just an example of a basic moral axiom. It would be like any other rational discussion over semantics.
So you agree that science already presupposes values are true? How can you argue then that morality is not objective then? You just assumed that it is.
My argument is that there is no justification in knowledge. Only conjecture and criticism. When a new scientific theory is created it tries to account for unexplained phenomena through imaginative guesswork, (the theory is not formed by purely observing the phenomena itself) that guesswork is scrutinized by deductive argumentation eg: “is it logically coherent?” and “does it explain the phenomena better than the previous theory?”. It is then put through falsification by empirical testing. Throughout that process there is no justification or foundation that is built upon. It stems from open-ended guesswork.
Science is shit at measuring morality, well yes, but that’s because morality isn’t really science - it’s philosophy. The idea that everything that’s to be considered knowledge needs to be measurable is absurd. This is empiricism again.
Yeah, you can use logical contradictions to refute anything, but only if they are logically contradictory - not everything is.
Again, ‘empiricism is false therefore there is objective morality’ is not my argument. My argument is 'empiricism is false therefore arguments that use empiricism are false ’
Right, exactly. Our experience is just neurological chemicals. That argument doesn’t refute at all what I’m saying. It refutes what you are saying. We can’t possible come to know what stars are purely through experiencing neurological chemicals. We first, before we even experience anything, have a theory based on guesswork on what those neuro chemicals mean.
[quote=“Chrome, post:18, topic:110186, full:true”]
I would argue that our definition and understanding of what truth is (or what we percieve it to be rather) is the result of cultural conditioning. [/quote]
Is 2+2=4 subjective?
Yes, (ignoring the previous things you assumed) conclusions that are informed from emotion are sometimes objectively true. That wasn’t my main gripe with the point you made though.
This exact argument can be used against all knowledge, none of it (apart from things encoded in DNA) exists outside human society as we know it. It’s not even based on something more grounded like feeling either - just whim. And that’s my argument. Knowledge is conjectural. The fact it is has no baring on whether it is objective though.
We don’t experience the stars though, we experience those man-made catalysts.
[quote=“BingoBongoLand, post:19, topic:110186, full:true”]
If that were true, morally, then humans would have an inner compulsion to prevent all unnecessary suffering (what a joyous world it would be to live in with Peter Singer as our leader…), and this moral axiom would exist independent of humans and human’s rationality, but as far as we can tell that’s not true.[/quote]
I see no reason why humans would have an inner compulsion? The axiom ‘a number is equal to itself’ isn’t true because of human compulsion. This criteria you are using is arbitrary and isn’t used in any other domain of knowledge.
Is maths subjective also then?
As far as we know our theory of the law of thermodynamics doesn’t exist outside of human society, the same as our moral theories.