Hi Gema,

The most convincing standpoint from which to mount an epistemological argument always depends upon the inclinations (worldview) of the person you are trying to convince. For instance, no one could ever convince me of anything by making a positivist argument.

Gwen

If I understand you well, your start point is no-cognitivism and emotivism. Isn't It?

Hi Gema,

No, my point is really a comment on Positivism - the scientific approach to reality that Auguste Comte is credited with being a founding father of:

"Positivism is the philosophy of science that information derived from logical and mathematical treatments and reports of sensory experience is the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge and that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in this derived knowledge." See,< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism>.

Despite being a Sociologist --a "science" founded on Positivism-- I am more qualitative than quantitative in my work, much of which deals with the Sociology of Religion. And, of course, Positivists such as Comte and other European Enlightenment thinkers (e.g., Durkheim and Weber) were certain that Sociology as a "science" would replace religion.

Gwen

Thanks, Gwen, I agree with this perspectiv: neither analitics positivism is the epistemic approach to moral, political, and even juridical matters (Raz)

But I doubt between Dworkin interpretativism approach and Habermas constructivism approach. Convencionalism to some extent is valid too.

This may be too out-of-the-box for you, but I think the broadest and most useful paradigm/premise to start with, is that the earth is for man (woman too !) ... as a safety net, laboratory and launch-pad for souls learning who they are, and their place in the Grand Design. But just because the earth serves us in our growth & learning, doesn't mean we can abuse it or each other, with impunity, or karma coming back to bite.

Well, some, like Colin McGinn, who argue from a positivist paradigm sort of point the way. For McGinn, the correspondence theory of knowledge is the most reliable when it constitutes a "true, justified belief." Others, like, Hegel also had a positivist view that led to a coherence theory of knowledge. For McGinn, any policy must correspond with a justifiably true reality. For Hegel, on the other hand, McGinn and his metaphysician opponent present us with a dialectic that constitutes a complete reality that we must endeavor to embrace as a higher reality (that's the positivist part).

Given those alternatives, we might decide to consider Richard Rorty's pragmatism. You also might enjoy Charles Sanders Peirce who, besides inventing the foundations of philosophical pragmatism, argued that the only thing we can rely on is uncertainty.

The question you pose contains an assumption about the nature of moral values, for some philosophers have claimed that there would be no true disagreements in morality if there were agreement about the factual framework in which moral conflicts arise and a full understanding the nature of the ethical principles which seem to conflict.  I disagree with this position and agree with Richard Brandt that there are ultimate disagreements about ethical principles. 

Further, I agree with Isaiah Berlin in value pluralism, i.e., that beyond a few core values, without which a society would not be a recognizibly human society, there are real conflicts regarding the right and the good, including conficts within the moral life of individual moral agents.  I agree with Berlin's rejection of Plato's idea of a realm of moral perfection which is consistent, timeless, coherent, and can only be known through "apperception" by a philosophic elite.

If one traces basic moral values, such as human rights or moral equality, back to their foundations, I believe, with Rorty, Margolis, and others that this foundation is shaky at best.  I believe in the cognitive status of moral discourse, but cannot prove this deductively.  The best evidence for cognitivism seems to me, as it does to Richard Wasserstrom and Elizabeth Beardesly, to be the fact that we can and do have moral agrumentation based on reasons open to all to be judged for their weight and validity. 

Ontologically, I would defend pragmatism tempered with Socratic scepticism regarding moral values, with the test of any claim on behalf of a particular moral value or ethical principle being its coherence with our most deeply held values and principles.  John Rawls' conception of "reflective equlibrium" strikes me as an especially useful embodiment of such a test.

If you want to put many mutually exclusive moral and political positions in a wide perspective, I think the best way to start is by going back to the basics. That is, what people feel and what they perceive. For example, Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind, 2012) argued that while liberal and secular people might perceive all morality through the lenses of the non-harm principle, more conservative people might have a wider morality and also moralize what they see as weakening social links. This is why you may see people who argue that it is OK to use your country flag as a rag in private (without anyone offended or actually harmed then), while other people will perceive it as a behavior that weakens all ties. Thomas Sowell (A Conflict of Visions, 1987, new ed. 2007) also gave interesting reflexions about mutually exclusive premises that lead to different versions of the world and consequently huge, sharp disagreements in morals and politics.

Hi Gema

The moral disagreement is a matter of choices.

Positivism lacks objective guidelines to choose.

Moral realism presupposes good. There is also no alternative.

Constructivism variant of positivism, has no objective measure.

The semantic convention only has answers to the statements. Not for values.

Hermeneutics has no direct answer for values. His performance sequence leads to a maze of choices.

Hedonism offers a choice: choose the pleasant. But does not define what is pleasurable. And the different variants of hedonism have different answers.

Plato has an answer. should always choose the moral good.

Aristotle is more prudent. Intends to continue the prudent man.

But in all cases one is faced with choices.

For Christians the pattern is given by the 10 commandments.

Other religions have similar variants.

Atheists or agnostics must answer to the dilemma of Dostoevsky (The Brothers Karamazov).

In all cases

the epistemological paradigm

not serve to resolve moral disagreement

Joaquín

Hi Gema,

The wording of you question is interesting. You say "in order to argue about..." If you want to argue then it is easy. Just take a stand and don't move!I guess you are actually interested in solving issues?In order to have moral and political disagreement one must first define separate sides to a dispute. To resolve the issue one "just" has to point out that the separate sides are dependent on each other for their existence - simply redefining the groups concerned. Most issues are actually taxonomic!

Best,

Roger