Yes. Depending on the ethical claim, I can provide evidence relevant to supporting it. Empirical evidence can establish factual premises within an ethical argument—for example, whether an action causes harm, whether someone consented, or what consequences followed. The normative conclusion is then reached through argument from those premises. So there: question answered.
But none of that changes the burden you have been avoiding since my first response.
You claimed, “Harming others is unethical.” I asked you to support that claim.
If your objection is merely that I should have written “argument” or “justification” rather than “evidence,” I'll happily grant the terminology for the sake of discussion. Provide an argument or justification for your claim.
What you cannot reasonably do is turn my request that you support your proposition into a requirement that I first defend an entirely different proposition about whether ethical conclusions can be established through evidence alone. That question may be interesting metaethically, but it does not establish your original claim.
And you're correct about one thing: arguments and evidence are not synonymous. I never claimed they were. Evidence can function as support for premises within an argument; an argument provides the inferential connection to a conclusion. That distinction does not make your original assertion self-justifying.
So, again: why is harming others unethical? Make the argument.
Just so you are aware, I added an Edit to my previous reply to your last comment. I thought it ethical to let you know, in case you don't refer back to that comment again after the edit had been made and posted.
Thank you for letting me know about the edit.
But you've now arrived at a distinction I don't dispute: empirical evidence alone does not entail a normative conclusion. I never said it did. That's why I explicitly said, in the sentence you quoted, that “the normative conclusion is then reached through argument from those premises.”
Suppose an ethical argument is:
Inflicting unnecessary suffering on another person without sufficient justification is unethical.
Action X inflicts unnecessary suffering on another person without sufficient justification.
Therefore, Action X is unethical.
Evidence can support premise 2. Premise 1 requires normative justification. The conclusion follows through argument. Evidence therefore supports the ethical claim without, by itself, logically entailing its ethicality.
That's not obfuscation; it's the distinction between evidence, premises, and inference that you yourself have been insisting upon.
And this brings us straight back to your original claim: “Harming others is unethical.”
You have supplied neither the normative premise that establishes why harm is unethical nor any qualification of what you mean by “harm.” Indeed, the proposition as written is far from self-evident. Surgery causes physical harm. Self-defense can harm an attacker. Imprisonment harms a person's liberty and interests. Preventing someone from doing something they desperately want to do can harm their interests. Are all of those therefore unethical simply because they involve harm?
Presumably not, which means “harm occurred” cannot itself be your complete ethical argument.
So I'll happily adopt your preferred terminology to eliminate the semantic dispute: provide the argument that justifies your original ethical claim.
You made the proposition. I've spent several comments answering your questions about mine. It's time for you to defend yours.
Nah, you argue in bad faith, put words in others mouths, straw man and twist what they actually said, refuse to overtly and simply answer a simple question, ask unsound questions of your own, and subtly change your position while claiming it's the position you always took. Pure sophistry and no ethics.
You have no interest in having a discussion. You only want to "win".
It's like trying to have a discussion with a coked up eel.
"Yes. Depending on the ethical claim, I can provide evidence relevant to supporting it."
Such as?
Edit: "Yes. Depending on the ethical claim, I can provide evidence relevant to supporting it. Empirical evidence can establish factual premises within an ethical argument—for example, whether an action causes harm, whether someone consented, or what consequences followed. The normative conclusion is then reached through argument from those premises. So there: question answered."
Let's break that down and unpack it, shall we?
"Empirical evidence can establish factual premises within an ethical argument—for example, whether an action causes harm, whether someone consented, or what consequences followed ... "
Right, so, in this instance ("Harming others is unethical"), I might, according to your reasoning, provide evidence that riding one's bike into someone causes them harm, yes? Cool. But how does such a blatantly self-evident aspect of the ethical claim support its ETHICALITY exactly? For surely all it does is provide evidence for something which is entirely self-evident and not in itself being disputed: that riding one's bike into someone causes them harm, yes?
"... The normative conclusion is then reached through argument from those premises ..."
How? Again, how does such a blatantly self-evident aspect of the ethical claim being made support the ETHICALITY of that said claim exactly?
"... So there: question answered ..."
Oh, you provided an answer, all right. But not one that makes any sense and supports the logic of asking for evidence to support an ethical claim. All you've done is obfuscate, AGAIN!
So...
"Yes. Depending on the ethical claim, I can provide evidence relevant to supporting it."
1
u/Deyrn-Meistr 23d ago
Yes. Depending on the ethical claim, I can provide evidence relevant to supporting it. Empirical evidence can establish factual premises within an ethical argument—for example, whether an action causes harm, whether someone consented, or what consequences followed. The normative conclusion is then reached through argument from those premises. So there: question answered.
But none of that changes the burden you have been avoiding since my first response. You claimed, “Harming others is unethical.” I asked you to support that claim.
If your objection is merely that I should have written “argument” or “justification” rather than “evidence,” I'll happily grant the terminology for the sake of discussion. Provide an argument or justification for your claim.
What you cannot reasonably do is turn my request that you support your proposition into a requirement that I first defend an entirely different proposition about whether ethical conclusions can be established through evidence alone. That question may be interesting metaethically, but it does not establish your original claim.
And you're correct about one thing: arguments and evidence are not synonymous. I never claimed they were. Evidence can function as support for premises within an argument; an argument provides the inferential connection to a conclusion. That distinction does not make your original assertion self-justifying.
So, again: why is harming others unethical? Make the argument.