Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7472575" data-attributes="member: 42582">The claim that "good" is subjective preference is controversial.Obviously many ordinary people disagree. I would say that the majority of contemporary English-speaking philosopher think that good is objectively defined, either in some Aristotle-type human interests fashion or some Kant-type mutuality of reason fashion. When you add in those who deny objectivity but aren't subjectivists either, becausae they are expressivists who think that "good" is not a referring term in the ordinary sense, then I think you get many more than just a majority of contemporary philosophers.If you're an Aristotle-type, then you hold that to learn the good does require something like scientific study of humans and their nature.If you're a Kant-type, then you hold that to learn the good - which there is a good chance you think is parasitic on the right, so let's instead say "moral truth" - requires some form of reasoning that, if not scientific, is certainly not just making stuff up.And if you're an expressivist, then there is a certain sense in which you don't think that moral value is a thing in the universe, any more than we would think (say) that conjunction is a thing in the universe (as opposed to a linguistic/syntactic device for conjoining propositions).</blockquote>