Until a few days ago I would have said I’m a nihilist, even though a few days ago I didn’t know that was the label for someone who didn’t believe that moral statements could be objective facts.
Now I would say a hearty “I don’t know” and assign almost a 50:50 chance that there are objective moral “ought” statements.
Then in the last few days I was reminded that 1) scientific “objective facts” are generally dependent on unprovable assumptions, like the utiliity of induction, and the idea that what a few electrons did last thursday can be generalized to a bunch of electrons we haven’t looked at (and won’t likely ever look at) and generalized in to the future. That is, I do think it is a “scientific fact” that electrons in alpha centauri will repel each other next week. 2) 2000 or 3000 years ago, people’s intutions were for the most part that “science” and “morality” were “real,” that is, objective facts that we spent some effort trying to figure out and understand. And back then, we did not have that much more success with the scientific ones than with the moral ones. But since then we got REALLY REALLY GOOD at science. So now, I look at scientific facts and I look at moral “facts” and I think, wow, science is clearly heads and shoulders above morality in reliability, so we really should use a weaker term for moral statements, like “opinion” or “preference” instead of “truth.”
But I cannot know that morality will not finally catch up with science. Certainly our knowledge of how the mind works is being advanced quickly right now.
As to the “is-ought” divide, it SEEMS impassable. But so does/is the “I believe what I saw” and “it applies to the future and to other things I didn’t see.” divide (induction). If I am willing to cross the induction divide on faith because science works so well, it is possible that moral understanding will get that good, and I will have as much reason to cross the is-ought divide on faith then as I have to cross induction divide on faith now. My basis for crossing the is-ought divide would be essentially a demonstration that people who crossed the divide were making all the moral progress, and the fruit of the moral progress was quite outstanding. That is, analagous to my reasons for crossing the induction divide in science is all the technology that people who cross that divide can build. If we get to a point where moral progress is that great, and the people making the progress crossed the is-ought divide, then I’ll have to credit it.
unprovable assumptions, like the utiliity of induction
One might call induction an “undeniable assumption” instead: we cannot do without it; it’s part of what we are. As a matter of human nature (and, indeed, the nature of all other animals (and computer programs) capable of learning), we do use induction, regardless of whether we can prove it. Some of the best evidence for induction might be rather crudely anthropic: we, who implicitly and constantly use induction, are here; creatures with anti-inductive priors are not here.
Until a few days ago I would have said I’m a nihilist, even though a few days ago I didn’t know that was the label for someone who didn’t believe that moral statements could be objective facts.
Now I would say a hearty “I don’t know” and assign almost a 50:50 chance that there are objective moral “ought” statements.
Then in the last few days I was reminded that 1) scientific “objective facts” are generally dependent on unprovable assumptions, like the utiliity of induction, and the idea that what a few electrons did last thursday can be generalized to a bunch of electrons we haven’t looked at (and won’t likely ever look at) and generalized in to the future. That is, I do think it is a “scientific fact” that electrons in alpha centauri will repel each other next week. 2) 2000 or 3000 years ago, people’s intutions were for the most part that “science” and “morality” were “real,” that is, objective facts that we spent some effort trying to figure out and understand. And back then, we did not have that much more success with the scientific ones than with the moral ones. But since then we got REALLY REALLY GOOD at science. So now, I look at scientific facts and I look at moral “facts” and I think, wow, science is clearly heads and shoulders above morality in reliability, so we really should use a weaker term for moral statements, like “opinion” or “preference” instead of “truth.”
But I cannot know that morality will not finally catch up with science. Certainly our knowledge of how the mind works is being advanced quickly right now.
As to the “is-ought” divide, it SEEMS impassable. But so does/is the “I believe what I saw” and “it applies to the future and to other things I didn’t see.” divide (induction). If I am willing to cross the induction divide on faith because science works so well, it is possible that moral understanding will get that good, and I will have as much reason to cross the is-ought divide on faith then as I have to cross induction divide on faith now. My basis for crossing the is-ought divide would be essentially a demonstration that people who crossed the divide were making all the moral progress, and the fruit of the moral progress was quite outstanding. That is, analagous to my reasons for crossing the induction divide in science is all the technology that people who cross that divide can build. If we get to a point where moral progress is that great, and the people making the progress crossed the is-ought divide, then I’ll have to credit it.
One might call induction an “undeniable assumption” instead: we cannot do without it; it’s part of what we are. As a matter of human nature (and, indeed, the nature of all other animals (and computer programs) capable of learning), we do use induction, regardless of whether we can prove it. Some of the best evidence for induction might be rather crudely anthropic: we, who implicitly and constantly use induction, are here; creatures with anti-inductive priors are not here.