In my logic class tonight I'll present, as an example, the following logical argument.
Note: an evolutionary account of how belief in moral values evolved is irrelevant to the matter of the truth or falsity of moral values. To think it is relevant is to commit the ubiquitous genetic fallacy.
SCIENCE TELLS US NOTHING ABOUT MORAL
VALUES
1.
Science only investigates physical
reality.
a. Non-physical reality is not
within the scope of science.
b.
Science, e.g., weighs and measures
physical objects.
c.
Science studies what physically “is.”
2.
A moral value is not something
physical.
a.
The following questions are absurd:
How many inches long is “goodness”? How many ounces does “right” weigh?
b.
Moral values are about “ought.”
3.
Therefore, science can say nothing
about moral values.
a.
Or any “value,” for that matter.
b.
Famously, one cannot derive “ought”
from “is.”
4.
Evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay
Gould wrote that “science studies the ages of rocks, religion studies the rock
of ages.”
Note: a philosophical naturalist (physicalist) will reject premise 2 because it assumes non-physical realities exist at all. Therefore, on this hard physicalism "morality" does not exist at all.
Note: a philosophical naturalist (physicalist) will reject premise 2 because it assumes non-physical realities exist at all. Therefore, on this hard physicalism "morality" does not exist at all.
