Skip to content
September 24, 2015 / compassioninpolitics

Objective, subjective, and the continuum in between. Why the claims of science are different from the claims of ethics.

1) Humanity is net worse with human rights.  Go!!!!

2) Humanity is net better with unlimited wars of aggression.  Go!!!!

3) Life is a net negative.  Go!!!

4) We should actively increase racism, sexism, and other forms of -isms.  Go!!!!

First, those are terrible arguments.

Second, they are rightly opposed by 99% of humanity.

There is debate on everything including so called objective science, but comparatively–there is massive, massive agreements among anyone with a conscience that the above are all false.

PS.  I’m calling your definition of objective into account.

PSS.  Science and math don’t even have the same definition of objective, because they achieve different standards.  Pure objectivity is only possible in math.  Everything else is like horseshoes….close enough or closer than comparative alternatives.  Otherwise…..the perfect becomes the enemy of the good (and we throw the baby of truth out with the bathwater of hyper-perfectionism).

This part of the argument is where it goes definitively off the rails.  This is true–its why science isn’t qualified to make moral judgements in the first place.  This is the exact reason that you’re an exercise in question begging:

“Similarly, dehumanization being bad is not some objective truth. Objective truths only pertain to what is and is not.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: