At 03:12 AM 7/6/98 -0400, Daniel Fabulich wrote:
>There are a large body of philosophers who claim that we can rationally
>determine what we ought to do, and thereby solve the problem of ethics.
>I find this position rather strong, since it seems to me that one cannot
>rationally disprove this, except possibly by showing how rationality
>cannot be used to make choices, an absurd claim.
>Have you uncovered something that rational moral philosophers haven't?
It seems to me that the "rational moral philosophers" have discovered something that has been fooling humans for a long time: problem shift. When they claim to be able to discern an objective "this is what you ought to do" they divert attention from their subjective premises, which are assumed a-priori. "You ought to do this" IF you want to achieve the subjective goal of the week, be it "happiness", "well-being", "financial gain", or what have you.
They haven't conquered irrationality, just used a slight-of-hand to focus attention of the objective bits....
"All your children are poor innocent victims of the lies you believe"