To assert that opinions are neither valuable nor valueless is absurd. If you don’t believe your opinions have any value there is no point in expressing them - and certainly not on a public forum. Do you really believe reasoning is a worthless activity?
I never said that I believed reasoning was valueless, though I would say that, in an -objective- sense, most opinions are.
What I said was that the statement you made doesn’t follow. Just because you know something is reasonable, it doesn’t follow that you necessarily believe it has value. You first need a basis for valuing reason. I have this basis.
The problem is merely that the statement “If you believe your opinions are reasonable you judge them to be valuable” is not always and everywhere correct.
Furthermore, let’s not lose track of what an opinion is. An opinion is a purely subjective value judgment, and only rarely are these based on any form of logic or reason.
Science is not called ethics! Nor is ethics explained solely by logic. It is unrealistic to divorce values from emotions as if morality is no more than an intellectual exercise. Why do people feel so strongly about injustice? Isn’t it because it amounts to a lack of love and consideration for others.
Sentence 1: I never said science was called ethics. -You- said “Not all our conclusions are based on empirical evidence and logic.”
In response, I said “Yes.” (as in, I agree on this point,) “It’s called ethics,” (as in, ethics is the type of knowledge which provides us with evidence as to the correct form and nature of objective moral values,) “but ethics is not divorced from reason.”
Sentence 2: Correct. You need logic -and- evidence about the nature of human beings, who, as moral agents, provide much of the data we need about our moral duties, though they don’t provide -all- of it.
Sentence 3: If emotions had anything to do with moral values, then you should have no issue with the actions of a sociopath, because after all, he’s just doing what his emotions tell him to do, right?
Clearly, this is false. Emotions are wicked, cruel, deceitful and misleading. Getting wrapped up in your emotions closes your mind to the truth, including the truth about morals.
Sentences 4 & 5: Perhaps. Perhaps not. It might just be because -they- have suffered injustice, and want to do everything they can to keep it from happening to anyone else. Even here, however, the necessity of logic is apparent, because how will you define “justice” without it?
Can you explain love scientifically or logically? Does ethics have nothing to do with the purpose of life? Does it exist in a watertight compartment of its own?
In a sense, yes. Ethics is a branch of knowledge and study, just like any other. An act is either wrong or it is not. It’s not based on how you happen to be feeling that morning.
Now, that said, ethics comes from the same place that our life’s purpose comes from, so in that sense the two have something in common.
Science can’t measure ethics, but logic can deduce whether an action is right or wrong through a series of simple syllogisms, combined with authentic divine revelation.
What in fact is the basis of your moral judgments?
I constructed a series of syllogisms to reach the following points in the following order…
- God exists.
- No religion except Christianity can be correct.
- God wishes us to know the truth about him.
- The Roman Catholic Church is the One True Faith.
- Orthodox Roman Catholic ethics are correct.
The chains of reasoning are too long to post all at once, but if you’d like further clarification, just ask.
Now, that said, this is only the -epistemic- basis for my morals. The -ontological- basis for moral values is, of course, the morally-perfect, unchangeable nature of God.
Only if there is a new spring - after death.
