Conjecture: Logical Positivism -- the theory that says the only statements that are meaningful are statements that are empirically verifiable (in other words, true by using observation) -- is right.
Refutation: The idea of Logical Positivism isn't empirically verifiable. So by its own definition, it's meaningless.
Conjecture: With regard to morality: just do what you think is right.
Refutation: It doesn't actually tell you anything. Whatever you end up doing, you will do it because you think it's right. The question is, 'how do you find out what to think is right?'
Conjecture: Cultural Relativism -- the theory that says there is no such thing as true/right/wrong, but only what the culture thinks it is -- is right.
Refutation: Cultural Relativism is just a piece of philosophy. It's not a physical fact. So, again by its own definition, there is no such thing as Cultural Relativism being better/truer than any other beliefs. Therefore there's no reason to believe it.
Conjecture: Utilitarianism -- the theory that says what is moral is what causes the most satisfaction for the most people (or the most happiness and the least pain) -- is right.
Refutation: It's the same as saying 'people should do whatever they want to do', which is the same as 'just do what you think is right'.
Refutation: What satisfies you partly depends on what you think is right. But to find out what is right, you must find out what satisfies you. But to find out what satisfies you...
Conjecture: Subjectivism -- the theory that says what is right and wrong is what each individual thinks or feels is right and wrong -- is right.
Refutation: I don't think it's right. So yet again, by its own definition, it's wrong. (Incidentally, it also suffers from the 'do what you think is right' problem.)
Many bad theories can be refuted just by applying them to themselves.
I don't think utilitarianism is so immediately circular; 'do what most people satisfies the most preferences' isn't the same as 'do what satisfies your desires' at all.
Ben
'Do what satisfies the most preferences' still doesn't tell you what preferences to have.
Say everyone in the world has died except 3 people. They are trying to work out what is the best course of action. For one of them to say, "I know, let's just do what satisfies the most of our preferences!" isn't helpful. They are trying to work out what preferences to have.
Yeah- I did once make this point in an essay; if your were an egoist in a world of utilitarians, you'd be a god.
It works if we have amoral/basic preferences though.
You mean random preferences?
Because where would preferences come from without morality?
I like ice-cream. But I don't think this is a 'moral' preference (or immoral); rather, it seems totally amoral.
Oops.
I don't know where it comes from (evolutionary phycology + superstimulous?), but if you call it a moral preference, I think we're using the word moral in very different ways.
I think it is a moral preference, in the sense that liking/eating ice cream is a choice and sometimes it'll be a good choice and sometimes it'll be a bad choice.
See this very good article for more explanation (including talking about ice cream in the opening part ^^ ).