@abbenm @a_breakin_glass Science doesn;t create natural phenomena, but it does explain them. And yes, it can explain ethics in much the same way. That's basically what game theory is. But the fundamental question of "Is this good or bad?" is not a scientific one.

@Angle @a_breakin_glass the fact value distinction is a popular one. But it is, just like all moral views, the fact/value distinction must be subjected to analysis, compared with alternatives theories such as moral naturalism, analyzed for its logical integrity, testing to see how well it explains the world, etc.

It's a meta-ethical posture toward the subject of values, rather than a definitional starting point.

@abbenm @Angle eh. I'm not a fan of moral realism in general.

@Angle @a_breakin_glass
Richard Joyce has a wonderful book called The Evolution of morality which explains the problems with taking an assumed fact value distinction as a starting point, rather than one view among many that needs to be argued for and defended.

And Richard Joyce isn't even a moral naturalist! He just happens to be an error theorist who's frustrated with some of the common arguments against moral naturalism.

@abbenm @a_breakin_glass Hmm, thats sounds fascinating. I'll add it to my reading list! XD

@a_breakin_glass @abbenm Though even there, it sounds like you start with the moral axiom of "We should uphold our natural morality" :P

@Angle @a_breakin_glass
And therein lies my weakness. If I am indeed treating it as an unquestionable axiom, then I'm not fulfilling my obligation to argue for it.

Moral naturalism only ought to be believed if it can establish itself as a reasonable explanation, without begging any questions.

It can be wrong, for instance, if the variability of different moral beliefs can't be explained. Which many people believe to be the case.

@abbenm @Angle
>Ethics comes from the natural world.

imho, it comes from people, but eh. unlike biology, it isn't a way of explaining a natural thing, and nor is it a way of understanding something as psychology does.

@a_breakin_glass @abbenm I mean, it sorta comes from the natural world. We do have ethical instincts, like an innate aversion to violence, and the like. But I don't think thats all there is to it. We also have all sorts of learned and constructed ethics, and laws predicated on ethics, and the like. :/

@Angle @abbenm
>We do have ethical instincts, an innate aversion to violence

this is probably one of the few ethical questions that you might be able to solve with silence, except it'd be either horribly unethical or retrospective studies of feral children.

@a_breakin_glass @abbenm Eh, I'd say wait until we have a better understanding of the brain and just study neural formation. Though that might take a bit. XD

@Angle @a_breakin_glass

To me, an important clue is this: scientific beliefs are *also* culturally transmitted.

Oftentimes understanding some aspect of science, really truly understanding, involves a personal journey, using different analogies and conceptual until it finally makes sense.

Looks a lot like the personal journey we all go on to understand morality. What we create is a framework for personally navigating through it

@a_breakin_glass @Angle
Should be "and conceptual frameworks"

@abbenm @Angle the same could be said of many things. though one could consider the beliefs of science as criticisable, as we're on that topic.

@a_breakin_glass @Angle

I agree. The same can be said of many things. And the methods, values, assumptions, etc of science are always open to criticism and anyone who says otherwise can go drink warm Diet Mountain Dew that was left out overnight.

@a_breakin_glass @Angle

Yeah, the view that it comes from people is a popular one. I think the distinction between descriptive and normative forms of morality is important.

Descriptive, refers to the psychological process of how beliefs are formed into transmitted. Normative is about what (if anything) exist over and above the process of forming beliefs.