Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
. You have to have an axiom at some point I think.
Meaning what? At what point in what line?
I have not yet (?) looked at the video, and it would depend on how Harris argues for his conclusion. But certainly, you cannot rationally arrive at moral beliefs without knowledge of the facts. Hume argued that science can tell you what moral options are open to you, how those options can be achieved, and what the likely consequences of those options are, so that you can make a rational moral choice. And this is clearly true. But (Hume points out) science cannot (after it has given you all of this necessary, and even vital information) actually show which of the options is the rational one. That is why Hume wrote in a famous dictum, "Reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions". For, he argued, in the end, it is up to you to choose the option you prefer. And that, he argued, can be only an emotional decision, not a rational one.
Yes. But aren't the ultimate questions unanswerable? They generally start with an assumption. Or usually our instinctive feeling.
I need a starting point.
It's been a while since I thought about this subject...
Perhaps there isn't any reason to assume that axioms are required at some point. Many people say they are and that was the context I remember this debate taking place in.
If morality is a system for ensuring the "health" of society, then axioms don't seem to be required.