Exomnia
13-04-2007, 00:21
Seriously, I find Hume's Fork and the is-ought problem (a.k.a. Hume's Guillotine) very convincing. Here's the argument:
a) All knowledge can be divided into two categories: matters of fact and relations of ideas. That is to say, there are only observable facts (the earth is round or E. coli is gram-negative) and mentally constructible facts (1+1=2 or irrational numbers are dense with rational numbers). Now these two categories are entirely separated. Relations of ideas cannot prove matters of fact because relations of ideas are only true in the context of the definitions and laws that are essentially arbitrarily set by the mind constructing the relations. And matters of fact (usually) cannot prove relations of ideas because no matter how many times you test a logical or mathematical theorem empirically, you cannot prove that theorem, there always could be a counter example. This fork essentially proves two things by itself: there can be no certainty in science and proving god's existence logically is fruitless. There can be no certainty in science because only relations of ideas are certain, matter of fact can always be deception or illusion. And if you try to prove god's existence a priori you are merely playing with words.
b) No moral truth can be deduced from physical truth. Essentially, you cannot make an ought statement from an is statement. You can go on all day saying what is but there is simply no way to deduce what you ought to do from what is. There aren't any big natural signs telling you what to do (for biblical refutation, see above).
So there you have it, no physical truth can be derived from introversion and no moral truth can be derived from physical truth and even if it could, physical truth is always uncertain. Therefore there is no absolute moral truth. QED, IMHO.
a) All knowledge can be divided into two categories: matters of fact and relations of ideas. That is to say, there are only observable facts (the earth is round or E. coli is gram-negative) and mentally constructible facts (1+1=2 or irrational numbers are dense with rational numbers). Now these two categories are entirely separated. Relations of ideas cannot prove matters of fact because relations of ideas are only true in the context of the definitions and laws that are essentially arbitrarily set by the mind constructing the relations. And matters of fact (usually) cannot prove relations of ideas because no matter how many times you test a logical or mathematical theorem empirically, you cannot prove that theorem, there always could be a counter example. This fork essentially proves two things by itself: there can be no certainty in science and proving god's existence logically is fruitless. There can be no certainty in science because only relations of ideas are certain, matter of fact can always be deception or illusion. And if you try to prove god's existence a priori you are merely playing with words.
b) No moral truth can be deduced from physical truth. Essentially, you cannot make an ought statement from an is statement. You can go on all day saying what is but there is simply no way to deduce what you ought to do from what is. There aren't any big natural signs telling you what to do (for biblical refutation, see above).
So there you have it, no physical truth can be derived from introversion and no moral truth can be derived from physical truth and even if it could, physical truth is always uncertain. Therefore there is no absolute moral truth. QED, IMHO.