Replies

But here's my ultimate point - yes, producing a proof for that statement is an exercise in futility, but not for the reasons you seem to think. The reason is that, no matter how rigorous your proof of that notion is, that health is objectively better than unhealth, it's going to inherently rely on some assumptions of truth itself. IOW, no matter what you offer as proof, that proof will be predicated on some assertion that some other notion is true.

So then we find out if that assertion is itself true. And I guarantee it, sooner or later in this process of reductionism, we will find some assertion that cannot be proven true, but must be taken as true in order to sustain the system that it undergirds. And that unprovable assertion will finally put to rest this notion that everything is objectively knowable. QED.

Now, you can believe me, or not - your choice. But if you think I'm wrong, I suggest we put it to the test by taking any moral statement you like - you don't even have to limit it to hedonism versus something else - and see whether we can reduce it to a basis in an unprovable assertion. Your choice of any moral proposition you like. I'll put my claim to the test - will you?

And I guarantee it, sooner or later in this process of reductionism, we will find some assertion that cannot be proven true, but must be taken as true in order to sustain the system that it undergirds.

As I pointed out several times -- yes, down underneath it all, I can't prove this isn't all just a dream. I can't even prove reality exists.

That was fascinating to me when I was 18, and new to philosophy. Now I see that as a shallow attempt to avoid actual, difficult analysis of the world around us.

In any universe in which the law of cause and effect exists, as it does in this one, then things are knowable based upon observation.

A thing is what it is.

Causes have effects.

"Beneficial" effects are a "good" choice, "detrimental" effects are a "bad" choice.

This is knowable, and provable -- assuming cause and effect.

You could best describe me as a 'Secular Taoist'. A Taoist without all the mysticism.

The core principle I live by is the idea that reality is what it is. There's an old story of a student asking his teacher what the truth was, and the teacher slaps the student in the face and says, "That was the truth".

What is, is. It is our challenge to see the objective, real truth and make choices that are most beneficial to our long-term self-interest. This is hard, perhaps impossible in many cases and for many people. But, objectively, obviously, it is the only choice, and everyone plays by that rule.

Admit it or not.