Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

[RuleBritannia]

Somehow something's got lost in translation, I was talking about "objectivity", whether something is true independent of the mind, you guys are talking about "objectivism", whether something exists independent of the mind. They are not synonymous.

[JOZeldenrust]

Somehow something's got lost in translation, I was talking about "objectivity", whether something is true independent of the mind, you guys are talking about "objectivism", whether something exists independent of the mind. They are not synonymous.

But the thing that is true is a proposition. If such a proposition corresponds to reality, it's true, but if there's no mind for the proposition to exist in, it can't have a truth value, can it?

Even if you'd adopt a neoplatonist position that propositions can exist independently of minds, you'd still be stuck with the fact that only descriptive propositions can be said to be true objectively. Normative propositions require an unjustified assumption that something is good, or desirable or some other variant of nice. Such an assumption might be entirely justified in everyday use, but if you're looking for an objective basis for morality you can't just say that anything is good because it's an inevitable outcome of the way the universe works.

[RuleBritannia]

Somehow something's got lost in translation, I was talking about "objectivity", whether something is true independent of the mind, you guys are talking about "objectivism", whether something exists independent of the mind. They are not synonymous.

But the thing that is true is a proposition. If such a proposition corresponds to reality, it's true, but if there's no mind for the proposition to exist in, it can't have a truth value, can it?

Even if you'd adopt a neoplatonist position that propositions can exist independently of minds, you'd still be stuck with the fact that only descriptive propositions can be said to be true objectively. Normative propositions require an unjustified assumption that something is good, or desirable or some other variant of nice. Such an assumption might be entirely justified in everyday use, but if you're looking for an objective basis for morality you can't just say that anything is good because it's an inevitable outcome of the way the universe works.

Huh? I'm not looking for and objective basis for morality. Morals are subjective.

[JOZeldenrust]

Somehow something's got lost in translation, I was talking about "objectivity", whether something is true independent of the mind, you guys are talking about "objectivism", whether something exists independent of the mind. They are not synonymous.

But the thing that is true is a proposition. If such a proposition corresponds to reality, it's true, but if there's no mind for the proposition to exist in, it can't have a truth value, can it?

Even if you'd adopt a neoplatonist position that propositions can exist independently of minds, you'd still be stuck with the fact that only descriptive propositions can be said to be true objectively. Normative propositions require an unjustified assumption that something is good, or desirable or some other variant of nice. Such an assumption might be entirely justified in everyday use, but if you're looking for an objective basis for morality you can't just say that anything is good because it's an inevitable outcome of the way the universe works.

Huh? I'm not looking for and objective basis for morality. Morals are subjective.

Then I guess we pretty much agree.

[Coito ergo sum]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0t ... ture=feedu[/youtube]