Jobar
Zen Hedonist
I'm aware of Hume's dictum that 'ought'- moral imperatives- cannot be derived from 'is'- statements of empirical fact. Two things lead me to question the accuracy of this. First, there's a wide range of chaotic linkages found in nature, such as the 'butterfly effect' in atmospheric physics, and none of these effects are attributed to anything outside of empirical reality; I think that human morality can be considered to be chaotically linked to the facts of the world we live in, and the survival strategies of humans in that world. Second, the absence of anything I can identify as a moral absolute; what we call 'moral' changes with real-world conditions, and the ways in which our "ideals" change according to our abilities to manipulate the world around us.
I realize I'm going against any number of famous philosophers when I claim this, but I can't see where my ideas are wrong. I've seen so many seemingly counterintuitive moral rules explained by subtle and elegant reference to natural conditions, and I can't think of any examples where morality simply *can't* be explained empirically.
What we would like to be able to do, is to derive ethical guidelines from the natural world- in short, to derive our 'oughts' from what is.
I think it *is* possible to go from non-value statements to value statements. It's just that the chain of inferences is very long- you have to start at inorganic chemistry, build up to organic chemistry, then to behavior of simple organisms and evolved survival drives, then to complex organisms with a wide range of survival methods in a wide range of niches, then to intelligence... as I said, very long. But with proper understanding of chemistry, biology, and human methods of survival in various ecological niches and environmental conditions, it looks like our moral judgments do spring from facts of nature which are not considered value statements. IOW, a good and workable set of ethics must be linked to objective, physical reality- though that linkage may be long and winding.
I realize I'm going against any number of famous philosophers when I claim this, but I can't see where my ideas are wrong. I've seen so many seemingly counterintuitive moral rules explained by subtle and elegant reference to natural conditions, and I can't think of any examples where morality simply *can't* be explained empirically.
What we would like to be able to do, is to derive ethical guidelines from the natural world- in short, to derive our 'oughts' from what is.
I think it *is* possible to go from non-value statements to value statements. It's just that the chain of inferences is very long- you have to start at inorganic chemistry, build up to organic chemistry, then to behavior of simple organisms and evolved survival drives, then to complex organisms with a wide range of survival methods in a wide range of niches, then to intelligence... as I said, very long. But with proper understanding of chemistry, biology, and human methods of survival in various ecological niches and environmental conditions, it looks like our moral judgments do spring from facts of nature which are not considered value statements. IOW, a good and workable set of ethics must be linked to objective, physical reality- though that linkage may be long and winding.