Moral Law 1 part 1.5

Before I get to part 2, I feel like I need to make a few remarks of clarification.

As I stated in my last post, Gangadean seems to think that the moral laws (that we ought all to live by) are clear to reason. He begins his argument to this end with a prelude which rests on a proposed definition of ethics. He supposes (but doesn't prove) that ethics is about giving a rationally justified answer to the question, 'how ought I to live?'.

And I just want to be very clear that I think ethicists do pursue the question that he has mentioned just as they do often seek to rationally justify their answers, so far as such rational justification is forthcoming. This is based on my own observations about how ethicists conduct their business.  Part of what I was trying to point out is that Gangadean simply can't rest his definition of ethics on such observations because they don't prove anything about the nature of ethics. Now, what I don't believe is that ethics as an area has a clearly defined boundary line that is beyond all doubt. I also don't see why anybody should think that Gangadean's definition of this area of inquiry is the final word. Indeed I don't think that ethics is necessarily about giving rationally justified answers---because if you look at how philosophers (including Gangadean) approach the topic, they ultimately start with assumptions (got by intuitions)---which are not derived via some argument. Of course, Gangadean will likely pull the "self-attesting" card--that is, he probably thinks that the proper way to do ethics is to begin with "self-attesting" principles and proceed by deduction. But as I've argued before, I find Gangadean's notion of "self-attesting" to be no clearer than Descartes's opaque notion of "clear and distinct ideas." And just as Descartes couldn't (without begging the question) tell us why we ought to trust "clear and distinct ideas" Gangadean can't tell us why we ought to trust that which he labels "self-attesting." For all we know, the very notion of "self-attesting" is a fantasy--a predicate without an extension or at least, what Gangadean calls self-attesting might not actually be self-attesting. Remember, in the end, Gangadean judges something as self-attesting, via his own intuitions.

Importantly, what all of this is dancing around is the fact that Gangadean bears the burden of proving every single one of his claims beyond all doubt because he himself demands it.  This means that he can't help himself to claims like, "ethics assumes choice" and "choice assumes value" and "a hierarchy of values assumes what is of greatest value." He needs to prove each of these to be necessarily true. To do this he needs to provide sound proofs. None of this inductive stuff that I accused him of in part 1. So it's not that I'm trying to be pedantic in my last post, I'm just trying to illustrate how Gangadean has set the bar too high for everyone else and often lowers the bar for himself. For him to actually meet his own standard of "clarity" he needs proofs (remember he thinks that any belief without proof = fideism).

Another notion that Gangadean seems to be getting a lot of mileage out of these days is the notion of "common ground." When the going get's tough (that is when you press and press until you get to the inner core of his belief system) he cites that common ground is a precondition for meaningful discussion. He will essentially push you out of the discussion. Basically, if you don't wholeheartedly agree with certain of what he calls "self-attesting claims", despite his inability to prove that they are in fact self-attesting (or even that such a concept is intelligible), he will say that the conversation is over citing that there is no common ground.

I've explored the problem with this move in a previous post. There I argued that the participants of a conversation need not even mutually believe something in order to hold it as common ground--I can spot you premises for purposes of the discussion (i.e,. hypothetical reasoning). So I don't get why he requires his conversation participants to give full out assents to what he considers self-attesting principles. Gangadean also fails to justify the very claim that without common ground (in particular, as he conceives of it) there is no room for discussion. Again, another thing stated as just plain obvious (i.e,. intuitive), but not proven. Furthermore, Gangadean requires that we all be able to answer the skeptic. He often criticizes philosophers, in particular other theists, for failing to do so (e.g., as it concerns God's existence). Hence, it follows that he, too should be able to answer the skeptic about his claims regarding ethics. And I wonder what he might say to someone who just doesn't share his intuition that for instance, "choice assumes value." This is why I've made a stink in the last post about his lack of proving and relying on intuitions and/or commonsense. It's Gangadean who has set the standards of knowledge and rational justification, too high, even for himself. He's his own worst enemy.