Originally posted by JimL
View Post
It'd be like if someone said "why is the Earth a planet?" You could list a whole bunch of features (F1, F2, F3, ....) in virtue of which Earth is a planet . And someone could then respond, "Why does F1, F2, F3... make something a planet?" And the answer is: because that's the answer one would come to after examination of the objects that most plausibly seem to count as planets (which is just another way of saying: doing science to figure out the features are had in common by objects that seem most likely to count as planets).
Similarly It'd be like if someone said "why is that belief justified" You could list a whole bunch of features (E1, E2, E3, ....) in virtue of which that belief is justified. And someone could then respond, "Why does E1, E2, E3...? make something justified"? And the answer is: because that's the answer one would come to after examination of the beliefs that most plausibly seem to count as justified (which is just another way of saying: doing epistemology to figure out the features are had in common by beliefs that seem most likely to count as justified).
Similarly It'd be like if someone said "why is that belief justified" You could list a whole bunch of features (E1, E2, E3, ....) in virtue of which that belief is justified. And someone could then respond, "Why does E1, E2, E3...? make something justified"? And the answer is: because that's the answer one would come to after examination of the beliefs that most plausibly seem to count as justified (which is just another way of saying: doing epistemology to figure out the features are had in common by beliefs that seem most likely to count as justified).
Of course, one could throw over the table and refuse to accept that actions plausibly count as morally wrong, and thus stop the process in its tracks. But unless one has argument for doing that, then one is also committed to doing that in the case of scientific terms life "planet", epistemic terms like "justified", etc. After all, one could make the same move and refuse to admit that anything plausibly counts as a planet, or as justified, or ... In fact, many creationists due just this sort of thing when they refuse to admit that anything counts as evolution, unless it meets the absurd definition they employ. Really, it's even worse than that, since would could employ the same reasoning to an account of almost any noun-term. For example, one could use the same process to reject any account of why objects are red, why dogs are mammals, etc. And that's absurd. So, unless one has non-specialpleading grounds for treating the moral case difference, the objection is inapplicable.
To put the point another way: regardless of the topic you're an objectivist about (science, epistemology, meta-ethics), there's going to be a set of claims that you bottom out at and a set of examples you proceed from. If people simply reject those claims/examples without argument, then progress with them is almost impossible. This is especially the case if they will simply ask "why?" over and over again, in response to any justification you give them. So, for example, if someone is simply going to ask "Why does that make something a planet?" no matter what response one gives them.
Comment