15 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
Woah okay, there's a lot of misconceptions going on here at once, I don't know if I can get all of it in one comment. Please understand that the following comment is not a comprehensive correction of the state you're in right now. For that, you'll need to actually start engaging with the metaethical literature rather than just reddit comments from people familiar with the topic.
First, none of the three people you listed are well-read on these topics. In fact, they are actually famous among philosophers for being incredibly poorly read, incredibly poor thinkers with respect to these subjects, and perhaps the ~~worse~~ worst sin of all, being intentionally *misleading* on these topics. I'm actually really (pleasantly) surprised you're asking this here, because Harris et al. very notoriously and pervasively use some rather nasty rhetorical tricks in order to discourage people from engaging with the literature on these topics (for fear that their paying audience will realize their being crackpot con men).
They *do NOT* know what they are talking about with respect to these topics, and furthermore, understanding these debates via them will leave you *incredibly* confused. I would drop them like Scottie drops Judy.
Next, you're confused altogether about what the concern over the autonomy of ethics is even a concern about. The gap between descriptive and moral (and, usually, normative altogether) statements isn't about moral behavior or moral beliefs, but about moral facts. The question is whether moral facts are autonomous from other facts.
In other words, you seem to think the question is something like this: **"Are our moral beliefs due to something beyond the non-normative facts, or are they due to non-normative facts?"** Here, the answer seems to obviously be yes! All of our faculties come from our evolutionary history! While the cognitive faculties and physiological components that allow me to know that <2+2=4> is true, that there is a laptop in front of me, and so on undeniably provide me with genuine facts about the world, they are of course also faculties and components which came about via my evolutionary history!
But *this is not at all what the interest in the autonomy of ethics is about.* Rather, it's about what I described above, which is a question akin to the following: **"Are moral (as well as normative altogether) *facts* autonomous (in the various senses I alluded to) from the non-normative facts, or are they non-autonomous?"**
And here, it's demonstrably false that Jaak Panksepp found anything, this is an altogether separate issue.
Anyway, there's a bunch of other ways to interpret a few things you said, and they're indicative of wildly different confusions, so it's hard to even say very much other than that you *are* conflating things in this topic. The best cure, of course, is simply education. Maybe take a class, or read one of the books in the FAQ that seem interesting to you, or ask for recommendations based on your interests.
Comment by Whiskeysnout at 06/01/2020 at 09:48 UTC*
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
What I meant by describing the above gentlemen as phenomenally well read was to contrast them and their academic work with my own, to say that they are far more erudite than me, not that they are the *most* well read.
I've previously identified several significant flaws in the reasoning of all of them (as I will continue to do), this just stands out as the most glaring.
"Are moral (as well as normative altogether) facts autonomous (in the various senses I alluded to) from the non-normative facts, or are they non-autonomous?"
Well no, they're not autonomous. The autonomy of ethics is sacrilege on par with intelligent design, a speculative position that can only be held either through ignorance of or opposition to the theory of evolution by natural selection.
I don't understand why you invoke Panksepp at this stage in your reply unless you're confused. I made no claim of Panksepp publishing any sort of conclusion relating to objective morality. What Panksepp found however was direct evidence of the ability of disparate species to make value judgments based on ethical considerations, which *should* have been the final nail in the coffin for Hume, whether or not Panksepp himself recognized it.