Semester Ethics Course condensed (Part 2 of 2)
Summary
TLDREl video ofrece una visión profunda de la filosofía moral, explorando las perspectivas de varios pensadores influyentes. Comienza con la crítica de Nietzsche al código moral burgués y cristiano europeo, argumentando que la moralidad es un concepto impuesto por los débiles. Luego, el profesor examina la posición de David Hume, quien cuestiona la existencia de verdades morales objetivas al afirmar que las emociones son la única experiencia moral que se tiene. La discusión se expande con la argumentación de John Locke, quien vincula las verdades morales con la voluntad divina, y se contrapone a la objeción de Platón presentada en el diálogo de Eutífrono. Finalmente, se destaca la paradoja en la lógica de Hume, que, al ser una norma epistémica, no puede sustentar su propia validez si niega la existencia de todas las verdades normativas.
Takeaways
- 📚 Friedrich Nietzsche cuestiona la moralidad convencional, argumentando que la moral es para los perdedores y sugiere que la moralidad es un constructo social creado por los débiles.
- 🧐 Nietzsche en su obra 'Genealogía de la moral' ofrece una genealogía de la moralidad, tratando de desmontar la creencia en una moralidad objetiva y fomentando una comprensión de su origen.
- 🏛 La moralidad que Nietzsche critica proviene del código moral burgués y cristiano europeo, el cual promueve la humildad, la bondad y la justicia, y condena la agresión y la autopromoción.
- 📝 La etimología de palabras como 'bueno' y 'malo' según Nietzsche, muestra una transformación de significado a lo largo del tiempo, reflejando una revuelta de los 'esclavos' contra los poderosos.
- 🤔 David Hume sostiene que no hay necesidad de creer en hechos morales objetivos para explicar la experiencia humana, lo que cuestiona la existencia de tales hechos.
- 👉 Hume propone que la maldad de una acción no se experimenta directamente, sino que surge de los sentimientos personales de desaprobación que uno tiene hacia esa acción.
- 💡 John Locke argumenta que los hechos morales objetivos provienen de Dios, pero este razonamiento se basa en la existencia previa de algunos hechos morales objetivos, lo que lo hace un círculo lógico.
- 📜 Platón, a través del diálogo 'Eutifro', explora la relación entre lo divino y lo virtuoso, cuestionando si las acciones son virtuosas porque son amadas por los dioses o si son amadas porque son virtuosas.
- 🔄 El argumento de Locke y la cuestión de Platón sugieren que no se puede usar a Dios para explicar la existencia de todos los hechos morales objetivos sin asumir algunos hechos morales previos.
- 🚫 La原则 de Hume, que sugiere no creer en hechos no experimentados, también se aplica a sí misma, ya que es un hecho normativo sobre la creencia racional, lo que la hace autocontradictory.
- 🤔 La discusión filosófica sobre la existencia de hechos morales objetivos sigue siendo un tema complejo y no resuelto, donde las teorías de Hume, Locke, Nietzsche y Platón ofrecen diferentes perspectivas y desafíos.
Q & A
¿Qué filósofo intentó resumir su curso de ética en un único video y por qué falló?
-El profesor, que es un filósofo, intentó resumir su curso de ética en un solo video pero falló al intentarlo, lo que lo llevó a hacer una segunda parte del video.
¿Qué filósofos se discutieron en la primera parte del video?
-En la primera parte del video se discutieron a Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, Immanuel Kant y Aristóteles.
¿Qué filósofos se discutirán en la segunda parte del video?
-En la segunda parte del video se discutirán a Friedrich Nietzsche y se mencionará brevemente a David Hume, John Locke y Platón.
¿Cuál es la tesis central de Nietzsche sobre la moralidad?
-Nietzsche argumenta que la moralidad convencional, especialmente la moralidad burguesa y cristianizada de la Europa de su tiempo, es para los perdedores y que no hay hechos morales objetivos reales que justifiquen seguirla.
¿Cómo describe Nietzsche la genealogía de la moralidad?
-Nietzsche describe la genealogía de la moralidad como una revuelta de esclavos, donde las personas sin poder revirtieron los valores aristocráticos al imponer su propia moralidad, convirtiendo lo que antes era considerado bueno (fuerte, agresivo) en malo (malo, tiránico) y viceversa.
¿Qué principio racional utiliza David Hume para cuestionar la existencia de hechos morales objetivos?
-Hume utiliza el principio de que solo se debe creer en la existencia de aquello que uno u otra persona de confianza han experimentado o que debe existir para explicar lo que experimentamos. Al aplicar este principio a la moralidad, Hume concluye que no hay necesidad de creer en hechos morales objetivos para explicar la experiencia.
¿Cómo se relaciona el argumento de John Locke sobre la moralidad con la existencia de Dios?
-Locke argumenta que los hechos morales objetivos provienen de Dios, quien es el creador de los seres humanos y, por lo tanto, su propiedad. Deduce que, como no se debe dañar la propiedad de otro, se debe seguir una moralidad que no hiere a los otros seres humanos.
¿Por qué el argumento de Locke no puede explicar la existencia de todos los hechos morales objetivos?
-El argumento de Locke asume la existencia de un hecho moral previo, como el que no se debe dañar la propiedad ajena. Esto implica que no puede ser usado para explicar la origen de todos los hechos morales objetivos, ya que al necesitar de hechos morales previos para su propio argumento, no resuelve el problema de la fuente de estos hechos.
¿Cuál es el dilema presentado por Platón en el diálogo Eutyphro?
-El dilema de Eutyphro cuestiona si las acciones son virtuosas porque los dioses las aman, o si las acciones son amadas por los dioses porque son virtuosas. Este dilema muestra la dificultad en usar la voluntad divina para explicar la naturaleza de la moralidad objetiva.
¿Por qué la原则 (principio) de Hume podría no ser una buena justificación para negar la existencia de hechos morales objetivos?
-El principio de Hume es una norma normativa que indica lo que uno debe creer racionalmente. Sin embargo, este principio también podría aplicarse a sí mismo, lo que podría llevar a la conclusión de que no deberíamos creer en él, dado que no es un hecho que se puede observar directamente y no es necesario para explicar la experiencia empírica.
¿Qué tipo de hechos son los morales y cómo se relacionan con la norma?
-Los hechos morales son considerados hechos normativos, lo que significa que son hechos sobre lo que debería ser en lugar de cómo son las cosas. Estos contrastan con los hechos empíricos que se pueden observar o experimentar directamente.
¿Cómo se podría resolver el conflicto entre el principio de Hume y la existencia de hechos morales objetivos?
-Para resolver este conflicto, podríamos cuestionar si el principio de Hume es universalmente aplicable o si hay excepciones para ciertos tipos de hechos normativos, incluidos los morales. También podríamos explorar otras teorías epistemológicas que permitan la existencia de hechos morales objetivos sin contradecir el principio de Hume.
Outlines
📚 Introducción a la ética y crítica a la moralidad convencional
El profesor intenta resumir su curso de introducción a la ética en un video y, tras no lograrlo, continúa con una segunda parte. En ella, después de hablar de filósofos como Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, Immanuel Kant y Aristóteles, aborda a Friedrich Nietzsche y su obra 'Sobre la Genealogía de la Moral'. Nietzsche cuestiona la moralidad convencional, argumentando que no existe un verdadero hecho moral objetivo y que la moral es para los perdedores. Critica el código moral de la clase media europea cristianizada, que promueve humildad, bondad y justicia, y ofrece una genealogía de estos valores morales.
🤔 La rebelión de los esclavos y la revolución moral
Nietzsche describe la genealogía de la moralidad como una "rebelión de los esclavos". Según él, en tiempos de los antiguos romanos, lo noble y poderoso era considerado bueno, mientras que lo común y ordinario, malo. Sin embargo, los poderosos fueron desplazados y los caracteres de los débiles y humildes fueron elevados a la categoría de buenos, mientras que los atributos de los poderosos se convirtieron en malos. Esta revolución no fue física, sino moral, y consistió en convencer a la sociedad de que ciertas características previamente valoradas como buenas, como la agresión y la dominación, eran en realidad malas.
🚫 David Hume y la existencia de hechos morales objetivos
David Hume, filósofo del Ilustrismo escocés, argumenta que no es racional creer en la existencia de hechos morales objetivos, ya que no son necesarios para explicar las experiencias que tenemos. Hume propone un principio epistémico que dice solo creer en la existencia de aquello que hayas experimentado o que deba existir para explicar lo que experimentas. Al aplicar este principio a la moralidad, Hume concluye que no hay evidencia de la existencia de hechos morales objetivos en el mundo exterior.
🤔 John Locke y la teoría de la propiedad divina
John Locke, filósofo del siglo XVII, argumenta que los hechos morales objetivos provienen de Dios. Bajo la premisa de que Dios creó a los seres humanos y, por lo tanto, son propiedad de Dios, Locke deduce que no debemos dañar a otros seres humanos, que son propiedad de Dios. Sin embargo, este argumento asume la existencia de un hecho moral previo, el cual dice que no debemos dañar la propiedad ajena. Esto lleva a la objeción de que el argumento de Locke no puede explicar la fuente de todos los hechos morales objetivos.
🧐 El problema de la explicación de la virtud en el diálogo de Platón 'Eutifrón'
Platón, estudiante de Sócrates, explora la cuestión de la virtud en su diálogo 'Eutifrón'. Eutifrón, que cree firmemente en su conocimiento de lo que es correcto y lo que es incorrecto, se encuentra con Sócrates, quien lo cuestiona sobre la naturaleza de la virtud. Eutifrón responde que la virtud es lo amado por los dioses, lo que lleva a Sócrates a plantear la cuestión de si las acciones son virtuosas porque son amadas por los dioses o si son amadas por los dioses porque son virtuosas. Este diálogo resalta la dificultad de explicar la fuente de la virtud y la moralidad sin asumir la existencia previa de hechos morales.
🤨 La paradoja de la normatividad en la filosofía moral
Finalmente, se destaca una paradoja en la filosofía moral. Si la normatividad, que son hechos sobre lo que debería ser, no es necesaria para explicar la experiencia, entonces no deberíamos creer en hechos morales objetivos. Sin embargo, este principio en sí mismo es una norma sobre lo que es racional creer, y no es una experiencia directa. Por lo tanto, si este principio excluye la moralidad porque no es observable, también debería excluirse a sí mismo, ya que es una norma sobre la creencia racional que no se puede observar directamente.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Etica
💡Friedrich Nietzsche
💡Genealogía de la moral
💡Convencionalismo moral
💡Objetividad moral
💡David Hume
💡John Locke
💡Platón
💡Revuelta de los esclavos
💡Socrático
💡Normatividad
Highlights
The professor attempts to summarize an entire introduction to ethics course in one video lecture.
Part two of the lecture continues the discussion on ethics, following the introduction of Jeremy Bentham, Peter Singer, Immanuel Kant, and Aristotle in part one.
Nietzsche's work 'On the Genealogy of Morals' is explored, focusing on the first essay which questions why one should be moral.
Nietzsche argues against conventional morality, suggesting it's a construct for losers, contrasting with Aristotle's view that morality leads to happiness.
The distinction between true objective moral facts and conventional morality is discussed, with Nietzsche critiquing the bourgeois, middle-class, European, Christianized moral code.
Nietzsche's 'slave revolt' concept is introduced as a way to understand the origin of moral codes and how they can be rejected once their origins are known.
David Hume's philosophy is presented, arguing against the existence of objective moral facts based on experience and observation.
Hume's principle is applied to morality, leading to the conclusion that moral facts are not needed to explain our experiences.
John Locke's argument that objective moral facts come from God is discussed, linking the existence of moral facts to divine creation.
The Euthyphro dilemma, presented by Plato, challenges the idea that moral goodness is determined by divine approval.
The paradox of Hume's principle is highlighted, as it is a normative fact that purports to rule out the existence of all normative facts, including itself.
The lecture touches on the implications of denying the existence of objective moral facts and the philosophical challenges it presents.
The video aims to provide a comprehensive overview of various philosophical perspectives on ethics within the constraints of a single lecture.
Nietzsche's view that the moral system is a result of a 'slave revolt' where the powerless redefined moral values is discussed in detail.
The transformation of the concepts of 'good' and 'bad' from their original meanings related to social status to their current moral connotations is explored.
Hume's challenge to find an objective moral fact in the experience of witnessing an immoral act, such as murder, is analyzed.
The reliance on prior moral facts in Locke's argument from divine command theory to establish objective moral obligations is critiqued.
The video concludes by suggesting that the existence of normative principles, including epistemic norms, cannot be rationally dismissed by Hume's principle.
Transcripts
here we are again i'm a professor at
this university and i was attempting to
summarize my entire introduction to
ethics course in one video lecture i
failed and so now we need to do part two
in part one we talked about jeremy
bentham and peter singer and emmanuel
kant and aristotle and now we're going
to talk about nietzsche and so just like
the last time i'm going to edit this
video fast
[Music]
we start with a work by friedrich
nietzsche called on the genealogy of
morals this work is divided up into
essays and we're going to talk about the
first essay and in this essay nietzsche
answers the question
why be moral
in the first half of this video which
you should watch and i'll link to in the
description or whatever we saw what
aristotle's answer to this question was
aristotle's answer was the reason you
should be moral is because it will make
you happy nietzsche's answer to this
question why be moral is don't don't be
moral because morality is for losers
in order to understand what nietzsche is
saying here you need to understand the
distinction between true objective moral
facts if there are any and conventional
morality by conventional morality i just
mean the accepted moral code of a
society what that society as a group
believes what they believe about ethics
or morality and by true or objective
morality i mean the real one true moral
law the facts about what's right and
wrong
that this believed moral system is
trying to capture if you understand this
distinction then you understand that
there's some controversy about whether
this thing even exists but there's no
controversy about whether this exists
conventional morality is definitely real
because it just means the moral beliefs
of groups of people and groups of people
definitely have moral beliefs nietzsche
is talking just about this he's talking
about conventional morality specifically
the bourgeois middle class european
christianized moral code this is your
moral code and he's going to be
criticizing it he's going to be
criticizing the idea that people should
be humble and that they should be kind
and that institutions should be fair and
just and democratic the idea that
aggression is bad and that
self-promotion and self-aggrandizement
that these are are bad things this moral
perspective which nietzsche thinks is
dominant at the time that he's writing
and is if it was dominant then then it's
dominant now it's your moral view and he
thinks that it's wrong he's gonna give a
genealogy of it or an origin story
genealogy is just the word that means
the study of lineage here's what he's
trying to do he's trying to say where
this moral code comes from he's trying
to tell you
where you got your moral beliefs from
and he thinks once he's exposed the
origin of your moral beliefs then you
won't be so attracted to them you'll
think oh those are sort of silly i can
abandon this moral code that my society
has given me
nietzsche provocatively labels this
genealogy the slave revolt once upon a
time he says sometime around when the
ancient romans
ruled most of the earth there were
powerful people and these powerful
people were strong and aggressive and
cruel and that was thought to be good
whoever was common or ordinary or
plebeian the powerless were thought to
be bad he thinks that he knows this was
the case because of the origin of the
word good nietzsche writes the signpost
to the right road was for me the
question what was the real etymological
significance of the designations for
good coined in the various languages i
found they all led back to the same
conceptual transformation everywhere
noble aristocratic in the social sense
is the basic concept from which good in
the sense of with aristocratic soul
noble with a soul of a high order with a
privileged soul necessarily developed a
development which always runs parallel
with that other in which common plebeian
low are finally transformed into the
concept bad the most convincing example
of the latter is the german word
schlecht bad itself which is identical
with schlicht plain simple compare
schlechtvig plainly
simply and originally designated the
plane the common man as yet with no
inculpatory implication and simply in
contradistinction to the nobility well
okay what did all that mean what
nietzsche means is that the word good
originally just meant aristocratic or
rich or powerful and the word bad had no
inculpatory implication the word bad
just meant common plain ordinary but
then he thinks there was a slave revolt
not literal slaves but the powerless
people
these people they rose up
and
imposed themselves as the good ones and
their characteristics as the good ones
and they demoted the powerful people and
changed their characteristics from good
to well now it's not bad now it's not
good versus bad it's good versus evil
this revolt wasn't a physical
overthrowing of the dominating people
the dominating powerful people no this
was a sort of moral
revolt or revolution whereby the people
who are not in charge sort of convinced
everyone somehow that being aggressive
or being warlike or being dominating all
of those characteristics that were
thought to be good beforehand well those
things are actually evil and what's good
what's good is well our characteristics
us the powerless um being meek and being
humble and and that sort of thing that's
right are you following he's saying that
a long time ago there was a moral system
according to which being kind or being
gentle was not good and nietzsche says
that the only reason that you think that
being kind or being gentle is morally
good is because you're just so deep in
it you're just stuck in the moral system
that resulted from this slave revolt
which he calls the priestly mode of
valuation whatever that's just his word
for this
system of conventional morality that
results once you know about this system
of morality you're supposed to just
realize that there's nothing so great
about it and so then you realize that
being moral at least according to this
code of morality it's something that you
don't have to do because it was just
made up by the losers
now that we're done with nietzsche we're
going to try to answer this question are
there objective moral facts we're going
to start with someone who gives the
answer no and that person is the
greatest philosopher of the scottish
enlightenment david hume
hume is operating with something like
the following principle
only believe in the existence of stuff
that you
or someone else trustworthy have
experienced or that must exist in order
to explain stuff we do experience you
believe in the existence of trees
they're real because you've experienced
trees and you believe in the existence
of some far away place even if you've
never been there because someone else
who you trust
has been there and told you about it or
they wrote about it in a book and you
trust the book because it's a
trustworthy book and then there are the
things like electrons that have not been
experienced or at least hadn't been
experienced when it was first rational
to believe in them you believe in those
because of other things that we do
experience like we experience the
results that we read out of certain
equipment and the best explanation for
those results which we do experience is
the existence of electrons or whatever
so this covers all the stuff that we're
supposed to believe in and it excludes
all the things we're not supposed to
believe in like unicorns hume applies
this principle which seems like a very
rational one he applies it to morality
and he gets the result that oh we don't
need to believe in moral facts objective
moral facts in order to explain anything
that we experience and so then he thinks
it's irrational to believe in the
existence of objective morality he
writes take any action allowed to be
vicious willful murder for instance
examine it in all lights and see if you
can find that matter of fact or real
existence which you call vice what he's
asking here is for you to imagine
experiencing some bad thing like you're
watching someone
murder someone else you're experiencing
the murder but do you experience the
wrongness the murder is happening the
knife is there and the blood is real you
experience those things
but the badness is the badness there the
vice entirely escapes you as long as you
consider the object by the object he
means the thing out there in the world
that you're experiencing the event the
murder but what you're looking for in
this experience is the vice the badness
the moral evil do you experience that
you never can find it till you turn your
reflection into your own breast and find
a sentiment of disapprobation which
arises in you towards this action here
is a matter of fact but tis an object of
feeling it lies in yourself not in the
object hume's point is that the only
thing that we experience that seems to
be anywhere close to
moral badness is just your own feelings
your own feelings of disliking this
action that you're witnessing this this
violent act but if that's all that we
find then according to this principle
you shouldn't believe in objective
morality it's not out there in the world
outside of your own mind
well if there were objective moral facts
where would they come from one answer is
given by john locke
and his answer is
that objective moral facts come from god
locke was a philosopher living in
england in the 1600s and he presented
this argument
one god created human beings two
if x creates y
then y is x's property three therefore
these little three dots they mean
therefore they're just a shorthand for
therefore therefore human beings are
god's property okay that's the first
part of the argument god created human
beings if something creates something
else then the first thing owns the
second thing
so god owns human beings humans are
god's property all right interim
conclusion keep going four
we must not harm someone else's property
five therefore we must not harm human
beings this is an argument that goes
from the fact that god exists and has
certain characteristics did certain
things like created human beings it goes
from that to the conclusion that we must
not harm human beings so what this
argument does is it derives a certain
moral claim about what human beings must
do and this you might think is a model
for the origin of objective moral facts
that's a very natural thought now here's
the thing
this argument might be perfectly good
like it might very well be that premise
one is true premise two is true premise
four is true three really does follow
from one and two five really does follow
from four and three it may be a totally
valid and legit argument i'm not arguing
with any of that i'm not objecting to
any of that but notice something you
can't use an argument of this style
you can't do it you can't use an
argument of this style in order to show
where all objective moral facts come
from in the first place they can't all
come from god at least not via this
route here's why you see it
it's right there you see it
that
what is that look at that what is that
in premise four we're assuming that
there's a moral fact we must not harm
someone else's property it may be that
we must not harm human beings and locke
may be right that it's true that this
moral obligation this objective moral
obligation may exist and it may come
from god it may come from the fact that
god made us and owns us maybe but
this argument relies on the prior
existence of some moral facts some
objective moral facts so it cannot
explain where all moral facts come from
i'll say it another way you can't use
god to explain the existence of all
objective moral facts if in doing so you
have to appeal to some prior existing
putative objective moral fact this
objection actually is older than locke
who is writing in the 1600s it comes all
the way from plato who was writing in
like the negative 300s or something like
that i'll put up the dates
on the screen
plato was the student of socrates
socrates walked around a bunch and plato
wrote dialogues wrote stories about
socrates one of those dialogues is
called euthyphro because it's about a
conversation between socrates and some
guy named euthyphro euthyphro meets up
with socrates like by the courthouse
because euthyphro is prosecuting his own
father for murder you don't have to know
the details but if you do if you want to
know the details i have a whole video
about this dialogue explaining it in
detail the point is this euthyphro seems
to know a lot about what's right and
wrong because he's confident enough in
his beliefs about what's right and wrong
to prosecute his own father so socrates
asks him what virtue is and then they
have a discussion and i'm going to
summarize that discussion right now
so socrates asks this guy euthyphro what
is virtue and euthyphro says virtue is
what is loved by the gods so whatever
actions the gods or we can say god if we
think there's just one god whatever
action or actions are loved by the gods
those are the good ones those are the
moral ones those are the ethical ones
but then socrates asks this question are
the acts virtuous because the gods love
them
or do the gods love them because they
are virtuous this is a question about
the order of explanatory priority
you don't have to know that technical
term what you have to understand is that
the issue is
are they morally good first and then
because they're good the gods love those
actions or do the gods love them first
and the fact that the gods love them
makes them those virtuous okay well
euthyphro gives an answer he says oh the
gods love them because they are virtuous
so they're virtuous first
and then because they're already
virtuous those are the ones that the
gods choose to love
because the gods are good or whatever
and they love good things oh but then
socrates points out you haven't answered
my question if the reason that the gods
love them
is because they're already virtuous then
then what made them virtuous in the
first place we haven't answered the
original question this was exactly the
problem with using locke's argument
which might be a perfectly good argument
for its own purposes but using it to
explain the origin of objective moral
facts if there have to be objective
moral facts in order for that argument
to work then that argument can't explain
where objective moral facts come from
there's a lot more to say about this
dialogue by plato and i say a lot more
in the full video about this but right
here we're cramming a whole semester
into one video or two you might be
thinking at this point that the right
answer to this question is no
no there are no objective moral facts
and the main reason for concluding that
there are no objective moral facts is
the argument that david hume gave uh you
know two minutes ago or if this was a
whole semester like three weeks ago
there's a problem though there's a
problem with that argument so what i
need to do at this point is i need to go
back to david hume get that principle
from hume back up on the board so that
we can assess whether or not we can use
it to rule out the existence of
objective moral facts and we're going to
get that principle from david hume back
up onto the board through the magic of
editing this was hume's principle and it
was based on this principle that we
seemed to get an argument against the
existence of objective moral facts it
seems like there's no reason to believe
in any fact about what you should or
shouldn't do but notice something about
this principle it tells you what to do
only believe in the existence of stuff
that blah blah blah blah blah it's like
an order or a command what it really
means is you should only believe in this
stuff this is a fact about what you
should do
you should only believe in the existence
of things that you experience blah blah
blah blah blah and this seems to rule
out the existence of objective moral
facts but think about what kinds of
facts moral facts are they're facts
about
should about what you should do
in moral philosophy we call these sorts
of facts normative
that's our technical term for them you
don't have to worry about this technical
term you just have to know that these
are not facts about how things are
they're facts about how they ought to be
according to this principle if it's
right and if you follow it then you
should stop believing in
moral
facts about how things should be but
this fact itself
is normative it's a fact about how
things should be it's not a moral claim
this isn't a moral claim this is a claim
that falls into the category of what
what we technically call epistemic
normativity epistemic means having to do
with belief or knowledge episteme is the
greek word for knowledge this is a
principle of rationality but it's a
principle about what you ought to do
rationally and the moral facts the
objective moral facts they're principles
of
objective moral normativity so if this
principle rules out moral facts because
their normative and normative facts
aren't needed to explain what we
experience then this principle should
also rule out
epistemic normative facts it should also
rule out itself if this principle for
what's rational to believe in means that
you can't believe in
moral facts because the moral facts
aren't things you can observe they're
things about how things ought to be
they're facts about how things ought to
be well then this principle is also
going to rule out itself because a fact
about what you should believe in
rationally speaking is not something
that you experience you don't experience
the fact that you should believe in this
or that and no one experiences it and
you don't need to posit it in order to
explain things we do experience so this
principle doesn't work at least it
doesn't work in every case if it rules
out moral normativity if it rules out
morality objective morality then it also
rules out itself
you
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)