4 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
What exactly do you mean by "refuted?" A lot of discussion occurs over the autonomy of ethics in all sorts of senses, many of which you might think might be "Hume's guillotine."
Here's one claim that has been uncontroversially refuted that sometimes laypeople will say is the is-ought gap:
But it's also super unlikely that Hume was trying to communicate some naive logical autonomy. Rather, many more are concerned with the autonomy between moral facts (also, usually, normative facts at large as well) and descriptive facts in a *metaphysical* or sometimes *epistemological* sense. Metaethicists are concerned with whether moral facts can be reducible to any descriptive facts. They're also concerned with whether they can be fully grounded in descriptive facts. They're concerned about other things like this.
Some of these claims have more people affirming them in light of the research than rejecting them. Do you need consensus for refutation? How much? What are you asking for?
Comment by Torin_3 at 06/01/2020 at 01:37 UTC
6 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Here's one claim that has been uncontroversially refuted that sometimes laypeople will say is the is-ought gap:
* No descriptive (non-normative, or 'is') sentence(s) alone entails a normative ('ought') sentence.
What's the uncontroversial refutation of that claim?
Comment by Whiskeysnout at 06/01/2020 at 00:14 UTC
-2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
What are you asking for?
I'm asking if there has since the widespread acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, ever occured to any clairvoyant individual with at minimum a passing interest in moral philosophy that the same process is also responsible for the emergence of morality.
I'm really struggling here to see how that can not have been the case and I find it utterly bizarre that a lot of people who are phenomenally well read and often feature prominently in discussions on evolution, morality and how they relate to each other in specific domains (Dawkins, Harris, Peterson etc) **all** accept Hume's guillotine and never question it.
I feel like I'm fucking taking crazy pills, they should all know better.
Jaak Panksepp discovered through his research clear evidence that morality is an emergent feature of evolution. Peterson can't stop talking about the man but somehow cannot see the conclusions to his own logic.
Moral behaviour is that which generates iterative success over generations.