I used to be of the opinion that 'rights' don't exist in any real, or objective, sense. I've changed my mind. I think rights necessarily stem from morality, and since morality is objective then (some) rights are necessarily objective, also.

It seems that the individuals of a society are to be endowed with all the negative rights reasonable to foster self-reliance and a sense of regularity. Certain positive rights also necessarily exist, in the name of morality.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more the line between rights and morality becomes blurry. It seems that rights are essentially just politco-legal manifestations of morality. It might not be true to say, in that case, that rights themselves are objective, but that rights have an objective basis.

I don't know, I need to think about it.

Wait...where are you getting objective morality from?

It'd be easier if you told me your own conception of morality, and then I work from there.

Something along the lines of: I don't want to die, so I assume you also don't want to die. So then we shouldn't kill each other.

I guess.

I'll lay my position out in a set of premises, if you like:

- Moral sentences express propositions, are are thus truth-apt
- These propositions relate to objective facts about the world
- These objective facts (moral features) are reducible to non-moral facts.

In this way, we can determine exactly what is (im)moral within a situation, in principle.

Quote from: Cheat on January 23, 2015, 02:53:34 PM

Something along the lines of: I don't want to die, so I assume you also don't want to die. So then we shouldn't kill each other.

I guess.

I'll lay my position out in a set of premises, if you like:

- Moral sentences express propositions, are are thus truth-apt
- These propositions relate to objective facts about the world
- These objective facts (moral features) are reducible to non-moral facts.

In this way, we can determine exactly what is (im)moral within a situation, in principle.

But how do you go about deriving moral statements from non-moral facts of reality? How does it not fall afoul of the is-ought problem?

1. some objective fact
2.
3. what ought to be done

From my understanding a value judgement of some type must always come in at 2 and only from there can an ought be derived. Aren't value judgments almost always subjective?

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 23, 2015, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Cheat on January 23, 2015, 02:53:34 PM

Something along the lines of: I don't want to die, so I assume you also don't want to die. So then we shouldn't kill each other.

I guess.

I'll lay my position out in a set of premises, if you like:

- Moral sentences express propositions, are are thus truth-apt
- These propositions relate to objective facts about the world
- These objective facts (moral features) are reducible to non-moral facts.

In this way, we can determine exactly what is (im)moral within a situation, in principle.

But how do you go about deriving moral statements from non-moral facts of reality? How does it not fall afoul of the is-ought problem?

1. some objective fact
2.
3. what ought to be done

From my understanding a value judgement of some type must always come in at 2 and only from there can an ought be derived. Aren't value judgments almost always subjective?

is ought problem is a joke

all forms of inquire necessarily presuppose some sort of value, like the worth of empiricism and naturalism

hm, I guess I ought to read moral naturalist literature. . .

watch somw sam harris lectures

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 24, 2015, 06:08:29 PM

Quote from: SexyPiranha on January 24, 2015, 06:07:20 PM

hm, I guess I ought to read moral naturalist literature. . .

watch somw sam harris lectures

One day I'll have to sit you down and explain why Sam Harris isn't taken seriously on philosophy forums

Is-ought problem

You and meta

Go.

Quote from: SexyPiranha on January 24, 2015, 07:51:20 PM

Quote from: Jira on January 24, 2015, 07:47:02 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 24, 2015, 06:08:29 PM

Quote from: SexyPiranha on January 24, 2015, 06:07:20 PM

hm, I guess I ought to read moral naturalist literature. . .

watch somw sam harris lectures

One day I'll have to sit you down and explain why Sam Harris isn't taken seriously on philosophy forums

Is-ought problem

You and meta

Go.

One day when I'm not doing Lin Alg



One day

>tfw doing my Lin alg and statics and charter shits the bed

<- mfw MATLAB can't run on any of my computers

Quote from: SexyPiranha on January 24, 2015, 07:58:09 PM

Quote from: Jira on January 24, 2015, 07:55:08 PM

Quote from: SexyPiranha on January 24, 2015, 07:51:20 PM

Quote from: Jira on January 24, 2015, 07:47:02 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 24, 2015, 06:08:29 PM

Quote from: SexyPiranha on January 24, 2015, 06:07:20 PM

hm, I guess I ought to read moral naturalist literature. . .

watch somw sam harris lectures

One day I'll have to sit you down and explain why Sam Harris isn't taken seriously on philosophy forums

Is-ought problem

You and meta

Go.

One day when I'm not doing Lin Alg



One day

>tfw doing my Lin alg and statics and charter shits the bed

that's a bitch, are you dealing w/ big systems?

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 24, 2015, 06:08:29 PM

Quote from: SexyPiranha on January 24, 2015, 06:07:20 PM

hm, I guess I ought to read moral naturalist literature. . .

watch somw sam harris lectures

One day I'll have to sit you down and explain why Sam Harris isn't taken seriously on philosophy forums

one day you'll stop and wonder why moral philosophy is in such a dire state