I am not going to waste time explaining to you why empiricist skepticism - Kant's, Russell's, or anyone elses's - is a mistake.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:39 amI am not going to waste time.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:47 amFine. I suggest you have a really hard think about your argument.
An 'is' - a fact of any kind, including a fact about human nature - can never entail an 'ought' - a moral assertion about what should or ought to be the case. Your argument that there are 'oughts' that are themselves facts - for example, human neural programming not to kill humans - is fallacious.
There is no 'ought' in physical causation - no coherence to the claim that a cause ought to cause an effect. It just does or doesn't cause the effect.
I also suggest you have a really hard think about your epistemology - how you've painted yourself into a ridiculous corner - claiming that everything that was, is and will be the case in the universe exists only if and because humans exist - and how that supposedly helps the argument for moral objectivity.
Your empiricist skepticism - which Kant tried to reform but only recycled, and that Russell re-invigorated with his table - has rotted your understanding. Strip it all down and challenge every claim. The most plausible are often the most misleading.
Whatever the issue on morality you raised above is answered within this thread and others.
As for Russell's table [you condemned], I have raised as specific thread for you to deal with it, but you evaded it;
Russell: "Perhaps There is No Table At ALL?"
I suggest you address the issue with Russell's table in the above thread instead of repeating the same over and over again without providing argument against it.
Russell claimed humans are only acquainted with sense-data from some supposedly-real-object.
The question is how can you know [not of absolute but with high certainty] the supposedly-real-external-object when there is an eternal reality gap?
Don't be a coward, address that thread.
What you have to explain is why empiricist skepticism helps to establish moral objectivity.
Why does the idea that there may be no table at all mean that there are moral facts?
Does the stupid idea that we co-create the table mean that we co-create everything that we call a fact - so that we can and do co-create moral facts? Is the argument really that fatuous?