This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← The emerging moral psychology

FreeThink25's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by FreeThink25

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"?

Tue, 06 May 2008 10:51:00 UTC | #167049