[Josteniok]

I happen to agree with you. But I still wonder, can we figure out what these moral facts are and what the criteria are for them or are they worse than the n-body problem referred to in another front page article and impossibly complex with no closed solution?

I don't like the answer of "Because this X is obviously true" since the "obviously true" part changes so much. Do we think that morals that are "obviously true" are proceeding forward, like science, and are based on an increasing body of knowledge? There certainly doesn't seem to be the same kind of rigor applied to moral knowledge as there is to scientific knowledge.

[georgewsinger]

1. Yes, we can use our moral intuitions + philosophical analysis (just as we use our sense data + scientific analysis in science).

2. I believe we can resolve a lot of moral questions, as well as a lot of scientific questions. Some might be out of our grasp (just as some scientific theories might be out of our grasp of testing, given technological limitations over time, or what have you).

3. There is evidence that we have an increasing body of moral knowledge (aka "moral progress"). For example, 500 years ago it would have been an insane position to think that a society should be governed by a non-King, that slavery was unjustified, that women should have the right to work in all fields, etc. If you zoom out, moral positions across all cultures on earth seem to be converging to something. This is evidence that that something is actual moral truth.

4. Things seeming "obvious" to one but not "obvious" to another is just moral disagreement. But moral disagreement doesn't imply moral nihilism, just as scientific disagreement doesn't imply scientific nihilism. All we can do is keep better watch over our moral intuitions, explore counter-arguments/thought experiments, etc, and try to converge to reflective equilibrium/moral truth. Just as all we can do in science is to make better/simpler theories that best fit our sense data, and keep conducting scientific experiments.

[nemo44x]

Greece was a democracy and even before it is thought parts of Babylonia and various tribal groups were.

The west today is based on the liberal science revolution. However much of the world has rejected it. The Taliban believes they are far more moral than Western infidels. Nothing is converging.

[memling]

> Greece was a democracy and even before it is thought parts of Babylonia and various tribal groups were.

If you were a man with land?

> The west today is based on the liberal science revolution.

How would you set about demonstrating this? Why is the universe intelligible? Why should it follow regular laws? What is it that would cause us to suppose that it does, or to investigate it systematically?

[nemo44x]

It doesn’t matter it was land owners. You said that anything but monarchy was unheard of. It wasn’t.

I wound demonstrate that the West is based on liberal science by simply observing it is. To your other questions - pass the joint.

[memling]

> It doesn’t matter it was land owners. You said that anything but monarchy was unheard of. It wasn’t.

I think you may have assumed someone else was replying to you. The idea of democracy certainly exists in ancient times, but not in the modern sense.[1]

> I wound demonstrate that the West is based on liberal science by simply observing it is. To your other questions - pass the joint.

I guess I'm a little confused: what is "liberal" science? Is there a specific observation to which you could point to show that the West is "based on" it?

The other questions are, I think, relevant, but I'm content to pursue this one as it's where I'm most interested in your thoughts.

[1]: some good contrasts at https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-greece/ancient-greece...