RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.
The Magic of Reality
for the iPad
Sean Faircloth:
Attack of the Theocrats!
J. Anderson Thomson Jr. MD:
why we believe in god(s)
RSS Feeds
Spinoza and MPhil
You've struck upon an issue that often comes up when I talk with theists and I wanted to see if you could elucidate it for me.
I'm often told that writings on the evolutionary nature of morality are only descriptive morality and not PRESCRIPTIVE morality, which, I guess they find to be evidence that a God is necessary for moral truths to exist.
I think maybe I read in Richard Carrier's writings that the is/ought problem is solved by adding a premise? Not killing one another IS a beneficial way of having a peaceful society. If one wants to exist in a peaceful society, then one OUGHT not to kill.
I guess what I don't get is this magical element of the OUGHT problem. IS there really an ought problem? Can it not be resolved by agreeing on the goals of what "is" and what one "wants"?
Permalink Tue, 06 May 2008 10:51:00 UTC | #167049