1. A scientific approach to ethics is not to assume a priori that ethics cannot be studied as a science, still this allows the possibility that a posteriori this may not be possible, but that has to be shown.

2. There are three “arguments” against this position

3. Science is not really objective and does not count - universal skepticism, post-modernism and some religious moral theorists. If science and equivalent reasoning as this is denied a priori, it is question begging to argue for any subjective position (including subjective absolutism), since there is no common ground to discuss ethics. Meta ethics requires epistemic objectivity to decide on the ontic possibilities. (That is both science and meta-ethics are epistemically objective - not that one is actually, at this stage, the other).

4. Confusing the epistemic objectivity and provisional knowledge that results from science, with a) the ontic definition of traditional moral objectivity as being independent of agent’s nature, beliefs and desires - whereas that it is the epistemic study of the relevant ontic facts such as interaction of two or more agents, possibly including their beliefs and desires that is the scientific topic of ethics and b) the objection over moral objectivity being absolute (and irrefutable) does not apply to epistemic inquiry which is provisional and refutable. To assert otherwise is a straw man relying on equivocation over “objective” (and incidentally w.r.t 4b if moral objectivity was in fact true - IMHO it is not - this objection is no grounds to reject it)

5. A scientific study of ethics needs to deal with and resolve the fact-value distinction.

6. It is the challenge of point 5 that has to be met that otherwise prevents ethics as a scientific study and not the arguments as in points 3 and 4.

Great.  Start on #5 whenever you’re ready.

Bryan - 18 April 2008 10:44 PM

Great.  Start on #5 whenever you’re ready.

The purpose of this thread is to agree on 6. Do you agree on 6 , if not why not?

faithlessgod - 19 April 2008 02:11 AM

Bryan - 18 April 2008 10:44 PM

Great.  Start on #5 whenever you’re ready.

The purpose of this thread is to agree on 6. Do you agree on 6 , if not why not?

I agree on 6 if I understand the other points correctly.  Part of #6 was the statement that the challenge of #5 has to be met to enable the scientific study of ethics.
If you don’t intend to meet the challenge of #5 then why make a big deal out of the other objections not amounting to much?  Lacking the solution to #5 the other objections might as well be valid since the end result is the same.

As a result, I don’t see a significant point to this thread unless you intend to address #5.

Bryan - 19 April 2008 10:44 AM

faithlessgod - 19 April 2008 02:11 AM

The purpose of this thread is to agree on 6. Do you agree on 6 , if not why not?

I agree on 6 if I understand the other points correctly.

Then that is fine. Wjhat si there not to understand about 3 and 4?

Bryan - 19 April 2008 10:44 AM

As a result, I don’t see a significant point to this thread unless you intend to address #5.

I have already addressed 5 in the past but it was side tracked partly by objections 3 and 4 that are fallacious wrt to scientific arguments for 5. This thread was to isolate those objections, if they occur again, in this thread for further discussion as required. You in particular have, in the past, rejected 3. So you now accept that as a means of finding a realist conception, ethics could use science and it is not invalid a priori to do so?

faithlessgod - 20 April 2008 06:00 AM

Bryan - 19 April 2008 10:44 AM

faithlessgod - 19 April 2008 02:11 AM

The purpose of this thread is to agree on 6. Do you agree on 6 , if not why not?

I agree on 6 if I understand the other points correctly.

Then that is fine. Wjhat si there not to understand about 3 and 4?

You might be using words with other than the definition I’m understanding from them.

Bryan - 19 April 2008 10:44 AM

As a result, I don’t see a significant point to this thread unless you intend to address #5.

I have already addressed 5 in the past but it was side tracked partly by objections 3 and 4 that are fallacious wrt to scientific arguments for 5.

I’m skeptical of the proposition that you have addressed #5 in the past.

This thread was to isolate those objections, if they occur again, in this thread for further discussion as required. You in particular have, in the past, rejected 3.

I doubt it.

So you now accept that as a means of finding a realist conception, ethics could use science and it is not invalid a priori to do so?

I’ve never held that it is “invalid” a priori to use science to evaluate ethics, with the caveat that science relies on induction which is formally invalid by definition.  On the contrary, I’ve made my objections on inductive and probabilistic grounds.

It really looks like you’d rather talk about 3 and 4 rather than the key to the whole shebang (#5).

Bryan - 20 April 2008 01:06 PM

So you now accept that as a means of finding a realist conception, ethics could use science and it is not invalid a priori to do so?

I’ve never held that it is “invalid” a priori to use science to evaluate ethics, with the caveat that science relies on induction which is formally invalid by definition.  On the contrary, I’ve made my objections on inductive and probabilistic grounds.

I am the one who has been making probabilistic arguments and you have rejected using such approaches and not on invalid inductive grounds. 21st century science does not use induction, except as a hypothesis generation mechanism, I prefer abduction anyway. So do you accept 3 or not as the basic for empirical debates in general or not?

posted twice--deleted the text of the least current version accordingly.

faithlessgod - 20 April 2008 06:04 PM

Bryan - 20 April 2008 01:06 PM

So you now accept that as a means of finding a realist conception, ethics could use science and it is not invalid a priori to do so?

I’ve never held that it is “invalid” a priori to use science to evaluate ethics, with the caveat that science relies on induction which is formally invalid by definition.  On the contrary, I’ve made my objections on inductive and probabilistic grounds.

I am the one who has been making probabilistic arguments and you have rejected using such approaches and not on invalid inductive grounds.

You’re a fantasist, as far as I can tell.

Bryan:
As I’ve already stated, because the traditional understandings of “objective” and “relative” suggest the dichotomy and because I detect no coherent middle ground.

faithlessgod:
You took on a position to defend and then did not do so just invoking argument from ignorance, hardly a compelling case.

Note that faithless responds to what should fairly obviously be taken as an inductive argument as though it was a deductive argument (appeal to ignorance is not necessarily fallacious in an inductive argument).  And now only he argues inductively (and it should be funny to anybody that faithless accuses others of appealing to ignorance while he does the exact same thing)!

One problem for certain I’ve got with faithless is that he makes his claims in absolute terms--exactly the opposite of what we should see from one who intends to make his case inductively (let alone abductively).

In particular, faithless should be demonstrating how his “empirical” examination of moral facts favors the conclusion of moral realism over that of moral relativism.  If his argument is inductive then it appears to be very weak, and if abductive it should hardly register the time of day’s interest with Dr. McKenzie.

21st century science does not use induction, except as a hypothesis generation mechanism, I prefer abduction anyway.

Abduction is an inductive process that is even less certain in the support it offers for its would-be conclusions, and 21st century science most certainly does involve induction.  That’s what is happening every time a finite number of confirmations (of predictions) is used to lend support to a given hypothesis.

And 21st century science continues to use induction, whether you wish to admit it or not.  Scientists do not uniformly keep their hypotheses provisional--and if you keep your empirical demonstration of real moral facts provisional Dr. McKenzie will have every reason to ask you why relativism would not remain a player in the game.  Will you claim to have falsified moral relativism?

So do you accept 3 or not as the basic for empirical debates in general or not?

Stop stalling.  Get to #5 or at least cut and paste where you supposedly already established it.

“I agree on 6 if I understand the other points correctly.”
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3945/#36643

Bryan - 21 April 2008 06:21 AM

You’re a fantasist, as far as I can tell.

And you call this rational debate!!! :-( Again I have heard nothing but fantasy coming from you, stop looking in he mirror!

Either you accept science as a basis for resolving the fact-value distinction or you do not. It is clear from your post that you do not, so, typically, contrary to your claim, you do not in fact agree with #6. The rest of your post was irrelevant. Now what do you propose as a better alternative?

faithlessgod - 21 April 2008 08:25 AM

Bryan - 21 April 2008 06:21 AM

You’re a fantasist, as far as I can tell.

And you call this rational debate!!! :-(

On your part no, on my part, yes.  Look at the context.  You asserted that you are the one who argues inductively and that I do not argue inductively.  I provided an example of inductive argumentation on my part, and you ignored it in your response in favor of the isolated conclusion.  If I am right that I utilized an inductive argument then you are a fantasist just as I said, in that you engaged in the fantasy that I did not employ a probabilistic argument.

Again I have heard nothing but fantasy coming from you, stop looking in (t)he mirror!

Either you accept science as a basis for resolving the fact-value distinction or you do not.

I suppose you could put it that way, but the way you phrase it makes it seem that if I do not accept science as a basis for resolving the fact-value distinction therefore I am rejecting science as a basis for resolving the fact-value distinction.  The fact is that I do not accept science as a basis of resolving the fact-value distinction, for I am skeptical that #5 has been successfully addressed.

And I’m puzzled as to why you would decline to highlight the argument you would claim to have used in successfully addressing that issue.

It is clear from your post that you do not, so, typically, contrary to your claim, you do not in fact agree with #6.

It’s not as clear to me as it is to you that I do not agree with #6.  Why do you think so?

Bryan - 21 April 2008 08:37 AM

faithlessgod - 21 April 2008 08:25 AM

Either you accept science as a basis for resolving the fact-value distinction or you do not.

I suppose you could put it that way, but the way you phrase it makes it seem that if I do not accept science as a basis for resolving the fact-value distinction therefore I am rejecting science as a basis for resolving the fact-value distinction.  The fact is that I do not accept science as a basis of resolving the fact-value distinction, for I am skeptical that #5 has been successfully addressed.

Well I have already made the argument before, but you seem to reject science as basis for anything. So either propose an alternative or accept this. It is up to you. Accepting this does not mean that my argument works, but it is predicated on using the best available tools to do so, IMHO that is sceince. If you have a different notion of “best” and/or a different means to achieve epistemological objectivity, then say so rather than avoid answering the question.

faithlessgod - 21 April 2008 10:01 AM

Bryan - 21 April 2008 08:37 AM

faithlessgod - 21 April 2008 08:25 AM

Either you accept science as a basis for resolving the fact-value distinction or you do not.

I suppose you could put it that way, but the way you phrase it makes it seem that if I do not accept science as a basis for resolving the fact-value distinction therefore I am rejecting science as a basis for resolving the fact-value distinction.  The fact is that I do not accept science as a basis of resolving the fact-value distinction, for I am skeptical that #5 has been successfully addressed.

Well I have already made the argument before, but you seem to reject science as basis for anything.

I do?  Based on what, other than my objections to #5?

So either propose an alternative or accept this. It is up to you.

Haven’t you just stepped over the line into offering me a false dilemma?  Why can’t I remain agnostic or skeptical about science as basis for prescriptive morality pending my acceptance of an argument to that effect?

Accepting this does not mean that my argument works, but it is predicated on using the best available tools to do so, IMHO that is sceince.

I guess, but if I accept the conclusion then why should you bother with the argument in the first place other than to get nods of approval from those who agree with you?

And why do you continue to resist highlighting the answer you claim to have produced for #5?  It’s something to be proud of, if it works.

If you have a different notion of “best” and/or a different means to achieve epistemological objectivity, then say so rather than avoid answering the question.

I have no problem so far with what you propose as epistemology.  But I don’t see how it helps you objectively place one moral model in preference to another (which brings us back to the portion of my earlier post that you termed “irrelevant").

Bryan - 21 April 2008 10:25 AM

faithlessgod - 21 April 2008 10:01 AM

Well I have already made the argument before, but you seem to reject science as basis for anything.

I do?  Based on what, other than my objections to #5?

Your rejection of science and your refusal to offer any alternative to make the case for your “moral objectivity”.

Bryan - 21 April 2008 08:37 AM

faithlessgod - 21 April 2008 08:25 AM

So either propose an alternative or accept this. It is up to you.

Haven’t you just stepped over the line into offering me a false dilemma?  Why can’t I remain agnostic or skeptical about science as basis for prescriptive morality pending my acceptance of an argument to that effect?

I have seen no evidence based on past correspondence that that is what you do. This evidence indicates is that you know the answer, have no need to demonstrate it, have no indeed to say why you have no need to demonstrate it and everyone else must be wrong. For example whatever “induction argument” you have is plain irrelevant unless you can propose a better alternative to science in understanding reality. If you have nothing to propose then fine but then there is no basis to argue for your “moral obectivism”.

Bryan - 21 April 2008 08:37 AM

faithlessgod - 21 April 2008 08:25 AM

If you have a different notion of “best” and/or a different means to achieve epistemological objectivity, then say so rather than avoid answering the question.

I have no problem so far with what you propose as epistemology.  But I don’t see how it helps you objectively place one moral model in preference to another (which brings us back to the portion of my earlier post that you termed “irrelevant").

So you are now saying that science is the current best means to obtain an objective view of reality? But the fact that you cannot see how “you objectively place one moral model in preference to another” contradicts this and you need to explain this. Since science, if applicable, would show what is the provisional best refutable answer as to how morality works.

faithlessgod - 22 April 2008 08:15 AM

Bryan - 21 April 2008 10:25 AM

faithlessgod - 21 April 2008 10:01 AM

Well I have already made the argument before, but you seem to reject science as basis for anything.

I do?  Based on what, other than my objections to #5?

Your rejection of science and your refusal to offer any alternative to make the case for your “moral objectivity”.

I think you’re making it up.  Where have I rejected science other than in your imagination?

As for my supposed refusal to make a case for my moral objectivity, I drew a sketch of my moral framework while also indulging in a brief description of the associated epistemic difficulties.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/36353/

Bryan - 21 April 2008 08:37 AM

faithlessgod - 21 April 2008 08:25 AM

So either propose an alternative or accept this. It is up to you.

Haven’t you just stepped over the line into offering me a false dilemma?  Why can’t I remain agnostic or skeptical about science as basis for prescriptive morality pending my acceptance of an argument to that effect?

I have seen no evidence based on past correspondence that that is what you do.

Meh.  I offered an example and placed it in bold in my earlier reply.  You reacted with silent dismissal.

This evidence indicates is that you know the answer, have no need to demonstrate it, have no indeed to say why you have no need to demonstrate it and everyone else must be wrong. For example whatever “induction argument” you have is plain irrelevant unless you can propose a better alternative to science in understanding reality. If you have nothing to propose then fine but then there is no basis to argue for your “moral obectivism”.

Meh.  Now you’ve changed your tune.  You went from your statement above that I had to either accept your view or present my own to the claim that I can’t argue for my own view without arguing for my own view.  The latter is correct (so what?) while the former you presented as a false dilemma.

Bryan - 21 April 2008 08:37 AM

faithlessgod - 21 April 2008 08:25 AM

If you have a different notion of “best” and/or a different means to achieve epistemological objectivity, then say so rather than avoid answering the question.

I have no problem so far with what you propose as epistemology.  But I don’t see how it helps you objectively place one moral model in preference to another (which brings us back to the portion of my earlier post that you termed “irrelevant").

So you are now saying that science is the current best means to obtain an objective view of reality?

No, that’s not what I’m saying.  But you get five stars for creative reinterpretation.  I accept what you present as an epistemic approach, but I question the value you apparently place on it ("best").  It’s not up to me that prove that your method is not the “best.” If you claim it is the best then you bear the burden of proof for the demonstration.  Add to that if your method is poor when it comes to establishing objectivity the label “best” is rather empty without adding that caveat.

But the fact that you cannot see how “you objectively place one moral model in preference to another” contradicts this and you need to explain this.

I’m responsible for resolving a contradiction that you concocted by giving your imagination free reign?  That’s easy enough.  I simply point out that the claim you feel was contradicted did not occur.

Since science, if applicable, would show what is the provisional best refutable answer as to how morality works.

Sounds like you’re claiming that your method provides an avenue for falsification.  Please demonstrate, or please highlight where the demonstration already took place.

Oh you are boring. You are a troll and I am not going to feed you any more. Bye.