Well, I wasn't really making any such presumption. I was only citing Galileo and Copernicus as well-known examples of a rather common - dare I say universal - phenomenon. I don't know about you, but in my experience, people usually have an innate desire to learn. (Does the word fascination mean anything to you?) When that desire is quashed - as in the case with your son - is when learning is associated with having to do work, especially when one would rather be doing something else, like playing. But even playing involves making sense of one's environs. For Galileo (and many, many others, myself included) looking through the telescope was a form of play.
We don't require doctors and engineers to study calculus because they're all budding little Galileo-wannabes.
I think you're getting ahead of yourself a little. Why are they becoming doctors and engineers in the first place? Sure, some of them (doctors particularly) are doing it for the social benefits (read: cash), but those aren't the one's I'd feel confident in. Take it a step further and ask why people become chemists, physicists, and even mathematicians? Are these considered glamour jobs by society at large? (sure, they're respected, but that's not quite the same) For that matter, why do you study all those pedantic Latin phrases that you admittedly enjoy employing? (and are any coming to mind now?)
As for those doctors who are made to study calculus despite not feeling particularly inclined towards the subject, the fact that people wish to learn doesn't mean that they want to learn everything, and especially doesn't mean that they want to learn what someone else orders them to learn.
Onto another subject: Okay, I think I'm with you then. So what you're suggesting is that morality is a matter of fundamental and universal truth, that we discover as part of the universe around us.
I'd say it's more that we discover it within us, but you get the general idea.
The two problems I see are, how do you answer when someone asks you where that truth comes from?
I don't see how that's a "problem", for present purposes. We haven't settled the issue of where the law of gravity comes from either.
And second, how do we know when some proposed moral principle is really a matter of universal truth, and not just someone's opinion?
Well, it's not easy, as human history attests. But that doesn't mean these principles don't exist. The way to begin is by accepting as a matter of principle that these - well, principles - do exist, and aren't just matters of opinion. Getting at them, as I said in an earlier post, involves honest introspection; and from your comments regarding Eichmann and other matters, it seems that you understand that on some level. Reason can be used to elucidate and extrapolate from there, but it can't in and of itself provide a starting point.
Yes, but why don't we just let anyone hang out a shingle and call themselves a doctor? Heck, I bet lots of people want to be doctors, but those darn requirements for studying math and science keep getting in the way. But stubbornly, we require doctors to study math and science anyway. Why? Because doing so makes them better doctors than they otherwise would be.
Why do we make laws at all? Because they make us feel good about ourselves when we craft a brand spanking new law? Of course not - we make laws because it's good for society that we do so.
Me: The two problems I see are, how do you answer when someone asks you where that truth comes from?
You: I don't see how that's a "problem", for present purposes. We haven't settled the issue of where the law of gravity comes from either.
Sorry - maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying we should resolve where it comes from, I'm asking you where you think it comes from. Where does this universal truth we call "morality" come from?
Well, it's not easy, as human history attests. But that doesn't mean these principles don't exist.
Sure, granted. But on the other hand, if we can't tell the difference between universal truth and someone's opinion of what that truth is, how do we know there is such a thing? Even if I grant your assertion that such universal truths exist and are not matters of opinion, I don't see any way for some third party to differentiate between your "universal truth" and my personal opinion, especially if I forego the label of opinion and present my opinions as matters of universal truth.
For example, I assert the universal truth of the moral principle that says that goods and services should be distributed from each according to his means, to each according to his needs. This is universally true, and a moral principle that we should organize society around.
How on earth can you possibly refute my assertion that this principle is a universal truth, and therefore a moral imperative?