ethics philosophy science

moral truth

To demonstrate not only the difference between scientific/descriptive knowledge and metaphysical/prescriptive knowledge, but also the greater degree of both accessibility and authority in the latter, consider the following:

There are scientific experiments which everyone knows (accessibility: tick) without question (authority: tick) simply should not (prescriptive: tick) be performed ((and there honestly is no need for me to give examples of such experiments)).

EDIT: lest it need to be said, the previous post makes no claim, of course, for human omniscience in any area.

53 replies on “moral truth”

I’d be (in passing) interested to push you on whether (on your view) ‘relationships’ are even ‘real’ themselves. And (if there were time, which there isn’t at the mo) would love to pick up the ‘epistemology’ discussion. But hey I’m not sure we’re going to get much further here.

That’s fine. In the meantime, mull over a child who breaks apart her Lego creation of a house and puts the pieces back into a box. After she is done, she asks you, “Dale, where did the house go?” Are you seriously considering telling her that the ‘house’ from her Lego creation is a supernatural component added to the blocks she put together and removed when disassembled?

the lego house has the ‘supernatural’ component of design. We’re just so used to it that we’ve ‘labeled’ it natural. There’s a difference between a human with a reasoned, intentional concept/design of a ‘house’ and, say, a spider’s non-concept, non-reasoned, non-‘intentional’ ‘building’ of a web (or otter dam, or bird nest, etc.).

Comments are closed.