Question

I’ll start off with moral values as an example. I think it is pretty obvious that moral values are socially constructed and don’t have any sort of ontological basis to them. Nature is full of examples of a complete lack of care or lack of meaning when it comes to suffering and people or animals being in pain.

Given this, if say you agree with the idea that morals are constructed, isn’t it more practical to think this is not the case? Wouldn’t believing in morality being objective or perhaps even meaning being objective instill a greater happiness in your life? If everyone stopped believing in moral truths, society would crumble

Let’s take uncertainty as another example. Tons of studies have shown that uncertainty is uncomfortable. Fear stems from uncertainty and uncertainty very often leads to anxiety and depression. Philosophy often gets you to recognize that you can’t know many things. This in turn often has the side effect of making you question things that you never thought were questionable, things that made you happy.

Even in certain day to day things in life, such as competing in a sport, trying to be the best at something, approaching a partner, it is clear that being a little delusional or overconfident can get you better results than vice versa. As an example, women have been shown to like men who seem like they’re in control, not men who are wishy washy. But you can’t feel like in control if you’re an evidentialist. It must come often through a leap of faith, which is arguably…against truth.

So overall, is it sometimes better to just assume certainty in things, and believe in things with your entire heart instead of always trying to reason through things?

Answer 1

Philosophers debate the objectivity of moral values and the role of certainty in knowledge, arguing from different perspectives like moral realism and skepticism. While some assert the existence of objective moral goods, others emphasize the sentiment-based nature of morality. The fact-value distinction is also challenged, integrating values into scientific practices.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question poses a philosophical inquiry about the nature of moral values and the tension between accepting uncertainty or embracing certainty. It queries whether it is pragmatically beneficial to believe in objective morality and certainty in various aspects of life, even if such beliefs may be considered delusional or against the evidential truth. Contemporary philosophy often grapples with the objectivity of moral values. Philosophers propose lists of objective goods that contribute to well-being, such as health, knowledge, and virtuous living, which could be seen as objective aspects of morality. However, skepticism about morality stems from its normative nature, which asserts what ought to be the case without empirical evidence. Invested philosophers such as David Hume argue that morality is based on sentiments rather than facts. Meanwhile, moral realists contend that there are moral facts which provide an objective basis to our ethical judgments.

Regarding certainty and knowledge, there are perspectives that suggest one does not need absolute certainty to possess knowledge. Philosophy employs argumentation to challenge concepts like the 'certainty' theory of knowledge. This discussion extends to skepticism about the existence of God, where figures like Blaise Pascal argue for faith in the absence of proof. Yet, skeptics point out that insufficient evidence for moral or religious claims leaves room for doubt. Finally, objections to the fact-value distinction present an interesting crossroads, where philosophers like Hilary Putnam argue that value judgments are inherent in scientific reasoning too, challenging the traditional separation between facts and values.