(11-10-2018, 05:20 PM)vulcanlogician Wrote:(11-10-2018, 08:32 AM)Chas Wrote:(11-10-2018, 07:11 AM)vulcanlogician Wrote: Biologists face a similar challenge when trying to classify different species. That doesn't mean that "species" isn't an objective determination. It just means there is vagueness involved.
Species does not even have an agreed upon definition in biology.
But let's stipulate that there are statistical grouping that we can generally agree to conveniently call species. How does this help us with the question of morality?
It doesn't.
I agree. The objectivity of biologists' categorizations is not particularly relevant to moral objectivity... BUT if you are not convinced that science refers to an objective reality, then it will be impossible to convince you that moral judgements do. So we must settle that matter first if we are to move on.
You completely misread what I wrote.
Nowhere do I deny physical existence or the role of science.
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
