Item added to cart
Hunter Lewis has set himself a difficult task: he endeavors to explain why morals are not subjective. To understand his project, we must understand what Lewis means by subjective and its contrasting term objective. Consider the two statements Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939 and Stalin was evil. Whether Stalin signed the pact is a factual question, not dependent on peoples attitudes toward it. Either he did or he didnt. What about the second statement? Is this true or false, in the same sense as the first statement? Are there moral facts?To some people, it is obvious that there are no moral facts. Questions of good and evil, right and wrong, are value judgments. Ludwig von Mises expressed this position with characteristic force and lucidity: All judgments of value are personal and subjective. There are no judgments of value other than those asserting I prefer, I like better, I wish. . .Value is not intrinsic, it is not in things. (p. 363, quoting Mises)Lewis agrees with Mises; but, like Mises, he thinks there is more to be said. Value judgments express our desires; but to get what we want, we must deal with the world as it objectively exists&. We must face the reality of the physical and social worlds in which we live, and this reality imposes on us many objective rules. If we want to survive, we must eat, and if we want to eat, we must gather food, and so forth. By using our logic, and learning from experience, we can develop a system of objective rules that will enable us to consider the long term as well as the short term and to work together to meet our needs and even realize many of our desires&. (pp. 380-81)I have [ so far] ... discussed only one thread in this rich book. There is much more, e.g., a discussion of the view that Gods commands are the foundation of ethics. The writers whom Lewis treats reject this view. They are secular, though not all are hostile to religion; Hume, e.g., is much more a religious sklă•
Copyright © 2018 - 2024 ShopSpell