Aside from my issues with logic's usefulness, I also lack a coherent worldview because of my agnosticism on moral issues. What I mean is simply this: I do not whether moral rules exist just as an agnostic does not know whether God exists, and I would not know what the features of these moral rules would have if they did exist just as an agnostic would not whether God was the christian one or Muslim one if God existed.
For instance, I don't whether there is a correct moral theory, and if a moral theory did exist, I would not know whether it was utilitarianism, Aristotelian virtue ethics, Kantian deontology, or something else entirely.
I do not even know if morality is relative because I don't know if moral rules exist at all.
The reason for my moral ignorance is straightforward: There is no evidence either which way. Almost all moral theories are entirely consistent. Empirical evidence does not resolve the issue--no one has found a way to derive moral propositions from empirical ones.
What could you possibly do to knowingly answer moral questions? Will you devise a mathematical proof? What about a scientific experiment? If findings from quantum science are any guide, we know that intuition is not a reliable guide to reality on its own. Then there's the fact people use emotion, intuition, faith--any method you can think of--to come to radically different moral conclusions. Whatever consensus philosophers may have could easily be the result of selection bias (e.g., utilitarians/deontologists/whatever are drawn to philosophy). Philosophy itself, interesting and stimulating as it is, I suspect is primarily ad hoc rationalization.
I neither know nor care what is moral nor do you know what is moral though you may think you do.
No comments:
Post a Comment