Amazon.com Widgets
  • No responses have been submitted.
  • "Is" isn't "ought"

    Nature can provide people with moral guidance should they choose to look to nature for guidance (which virtually no one does as doing so would have terrible consequences) but there is absolutely no way in which it can be reasoned that nature in any way provides an objective guide to morality. My argument is because observing nature can only reveal the way things are or the way things happen, it does not give any moral guidance as to the way things ought to be or ought to happen in a moral sense, there is absolutely no differentiation. In extension, to anyone who wishes to argue that it does provide an objective moral guidance I would put a modified version of the Euthyphro Dilemma to them (albeit a "false" dilemma but I don't see how it could be escaped if nature is the supposed objective moral guidance).


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.