NationStates Jolt Archive


Between the Fork and the Guillotine; No moral truth can you glean!

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.
United Beleriand
13-04-2007, 00:25
is this another "god evades provableness" thread?
The_pantless_hero
13-04-2007, 00:36
is this another "god evades provableness" thread?Which is why I hate math. I declare mathematical atheism.
Exomnia
13-04-2007, 00:37
is this another "god evades provableness" thread?

No, the point is that there is no absolute moral truth.
Exomnia
13-04-2007, 00:39
Which is why I hate math. I declare mathematical atheism.

It doesn't matter if you believe in math or hate math. It is true within it's own context and there is no rational way to deny that. Whether anything in mathematics has any meaning is debatable, however.
United Beleriand
13-04-2007, 00:42
All these threads that deal with questions of god's existence almost entirely refer only to the biblical god, and they completely overlook the doubtfulness of the source and get into discussing details of this god's abilities and character while ignoring the lacking fundamentals.
United Beleriand
13-04-2007, 00:43
No, the point is that there is no absolute moral truth.And? Has anyone asked for moral truth? What is moral truth at all? And wasn't the OP about knowledge, rather?
The_pantless_hero
13-04-2007, 00:47
It doesn't matter if you believe in math or hate math. It is true within it's own context and there is no rational way to deny that. Whether anything in mathematics has any meaning is debatable, however.
You kidding? Even in a mathematical context math is barely rational.
Exomnia
13-04-2007, 01:07
You kidding? Even in a mathematical context math is barely rational.

How so?

Anyways, math isn't the point of the article, the point is that whenever anyone starts mentioning sin, you can rationally prove that their spewing crap.