Live data from Hacker News

Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

11–20 of 165 posts

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#12
"All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY."

― GNU Terry Pratchett

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#15
post #6
post #5

We then had this conversation: Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?” Him: “It’s a fact.” Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.” Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.” Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?” At least his son is smarter than he is.

What I meant was, his son's blank stare is exactly my reaction as a 30 year old adult --- I can't comprehend how this guy doesn't comprehend how stupid his questions are.

Could you please explain why you think this guy's questions are stupid? They seemed like good questions to me. His son's school's definitions of "fact" and "opinion" seem to not be mutually exclusive, which seems to contradict the implicit assumptions in the exercises assigned to the students.

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#16
Not a single argument against moral relativism was put forth in this article. But they mentioned that there actually are moral facts ad nauseum without a reason.

"Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative. Something might be a fact for me if I can prove it but not a fact for you if you can’t." Yes, yes, they are! Welcome to reality, a place where we can't even be sure it exists! I am proud of this educational system, teaching kids intellectual integrity and preventing them from accepting random statements as true facts just because someone repeats over and over again that they're true!

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#17
The article doesn't provide anything to back the claim that moral opinions may be universally, non-subjectively true. The cartoonist example is deeply flawed. We're outraged because this event violated our deepest beliefs and values we hold dear, not because it violated some universal eternal moral law. We also know that there were people that weren't saddened by this event too.

This is the problem I have with many philosophers. In the whole text you cannot find a single strong logical evidence. Everything is just an opinion.

It is impossible to prove that e.g. "stealing from others" is universally "bad". It may not be a beneficial strategy in a game theory, or maybe some statistical analysis can show societies are better off with this rule, or just that people sleep better knowing that others can't steal. But neither of this is universally true for humanity in general, and there are examples in game theory were cheating actually is a winning strategy.

Re: Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

#18
post #9
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I meant was, his son's blank stare is exactly my reaction as a 30 year old adult --- I can't comprehend how this guy doesn't comprehend how stupid his questions are.

No, you just probably never thought about what "knowing" actually means. Put simply, he wasn't there when Washington was President so he can only believe that historical resources are telling the truth.

Sure, or if he'd been alive, he could only believe his senses are telling the truth :-/
Post reply on HN