Harris' Landscape & correspondence of moral truth

[Ichthus77]

This question was passed over for inclusion at AskPhilosophers.org, so
I ask it here in their Google Group, and hope to have an answer before
October 11, because I'll be linking to it in the next Philosophers'
Carnival. Here is the question:

If truth corresponds to reality, then, if there is moral truth,
shouldn't it correspond to a real good, an always fulfilled ought? If
it is always true, it always corresponds--to a good that always is, to
an ought that is always fulfilled. So, if Sam Harris wants to call
this good/ought "well-being"--then (skipping the definition of "well"
for now) moral truth (always true) corresponds to being that is
(always) well--the real standard, the real pattern, but Harris denies
the existence of such a being. Hence, the question.

Thankyou.

Maryann Spikes

[Prem Das]

If I may be permitted to contribute my two cents worth, I'd guess what Harris means,
is this question or the 'being' would only exist if the 'good' is an absolute. 
 
> Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 08:43:00 -0700
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Harris' Landscape & correspondence of moral truth
> From: icht...@hotmail.com
> To: askphil...@googlegroups.com

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhil...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophe...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.

[Ichthus77]

He says there is objective moral truth. Is that not the same as
saying 'good' is an absolute? However, he is also saying the "being"
to which objective moral truth would correspond (the always fulfilled
ought) does not exist. So he does not seem to be saying that the
being would only exist if there is objective moral truth (and, if he
were to say that, he would be committing the ought-is
fallacy...reverse is-ought).

On Oct 2, 4:33 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If I may be permitted to contribute my two cents worth, I'd guess what Harris means,
>
> is this question or the 'being' would only exist if the 'good' is an absolute.
>
>
>
> > Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 08:43:00 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Harris' Landscape & correspondence of moral truth

> > From: ichthu...@hotmail.com

> > To: askphil...@googlegroups.com
>
> > This question was passed over for inclusion at AskPhilosophers.org, so
> > I ask it here in their Google Group, and hope to have an answer before
> > October 11, because I'll be linking to it in the next Philosophers'
> > Carnival. Here is the question:
>
> > If truth corresponds to reality, then, if there is moral truth,
> > shouldn't it correspond to a real good, an always fulfilled ought? If
> > it is always true, it always corresponds--to a good that always is, to
> > an ought that is always fulfilled. So, if Sam Harris wants to call
> > this good/ought "well-being"--then (skipping the definition of "well"
> > for now) moral truth (always true) corresponds to being that is
> > (always) well--the real standard, the real pattern, but Harris denies
> > the existence of such a being. Hence, the question.
>
> > Thankyou.
>
> > Maryann Spikes
>
> > --

> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhil...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophe...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Prem Das]

I guess I AM saying 'objective moral truth' is not the same as saying good is an absolute.
 
'ought-is fallacy....reverse is reality.
 
> Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:18:35 -0700
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Harris' Landscape & correspondence of moral truth
> From: icht...@hotmail.com
> To: askphil...@googlegroups.com

[Ichthus77]

Well, if there is no real good, then the "objective moral truth" is
that--there is no real good...it's descriptive, and can prescribe
nothing (no real good).

You think the is-ought is "reality"? Sort of confused by your last
statement.

On Oct 3, 3:09 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I AM saying 'objective moral truth' is not the same as saying good is an absolute.
>
> 'ought-is fallacy....reverse is reality.
>
>
>
> > Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:18:35 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Harris' Landscape & correspondence of moral truth

> > From: ichthu...@hotmail.com

> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhil...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophe...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.-Hide quoted text -