I have just read this work for a presentation I'm preparing for a philosophy class. your video did a great job of further explaining the content. Thank you.
The problem with saying that it is ethically wrong to believe in things that are not based on evidence is that it pressuposes the existence of a ethics based on evidence. But it seems to me that there is no ethics that does not start from axiomatic presuppositions that don't have evidence for. The most famous person who defends the existence of an evidence-based ethics is Sam Harris and his argument basically goes like this: All sentient beings avoid suffering, Therefore, we ought to reduce suffering in the aggregate. But note that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, this argument would only be valid if we add the following premise: All sentient beings avoid suffering, We ought to reduce the aggregate amount of what all sentient beings avoid, Therefore, we ought to reduce suffering in the aggregate. But what is the evidence for the proposition "We ought to reduce the aggregate amount of what all sentient beings avoid"? If you accept it, you will already be believing something without having any evidence for.
Thank you for your explanation. It helped me a lot to complete my assignment
No problem, thanks!
Thanks
I have just read this work for a presentation I'm preparing for a philosophy class. your video did a great job of further explaining the content. Thank you.
I'm glad to hear it. Thanks!
I have read books and talk to two persons who have had near death experience. So I have a belief that I will survive after death.
very easily explained, its very helpful for me..
Good, thanks!
Maniwala sa anumang bagay sa hindi sapat na ebidensya
The problem with saying that it is ethically wrong to believe in things that are not based on evidence is that it pressuposes the existence of a ethics based on evidence. But it seems to me that there is no ethics that does not start from axiomatic presuppositions that don't have evidence for.
The most famous person who defends the existence of an evidence-based ethics is Sam Harris and his argument basically goes like this:
All sentient beings avoid suffering,
Therefore, we ought to reduce suffering in the aggregate.
But note that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, this argument would only be valid if we add the following premise:
All sentient beings avoid suffering,
We ought to reduce the aggregate amount of what all sentient beings avoid,
Therefore, we ought to reduce suffering in the aggregate.
But what is the evidence for the proposition "We ought to reduce the aggregate amount of what all sentient beings avoid"? If you accept it, you will already be believing something without having any evidence for.
Hi Rodolfo, Thank you for the comment. By 'evidence,' do you mean 'empirical evidence'?
@@keithahess Yes
@@rodolfo9916 couldn't we have (at least in principle) non-empirical evidence to justify moral claims?
@@keithahess Maybe.
Could we (at least in principle) use non-empirical evidence to justify our non-moral belifs?
@@rodolfo9916 Absolutely. We justify mathematical beliefs using non-empirical evidence and methods.