Like, all of us need to have a position about what we value, because that’s what we use to guide our decisions. But all theories of ethics are “flawed”: basically they’re formulated in natural language, and none of the terms are on very firm mathematical footing.
But you should be very careful with using this as an argument against any specific ethical theory, because that line of reasoning enables you to discount any theory you don’t want to believe, even that theory actually has stronger arguments for it, by your own standards, than what you currently believe.
I think your proof example is not right, a better example is like:
I’m a mathematician and do tons of mathematical work. You show me your proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. I can’t find any real flaws in it, but I tell you its based on ZFC and ZFC is subject to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, and therefore we cant be sure the system you’re using to prove RH is even consistent, therefore I ignore your proof. You ask me what to use instead of ZFC, I tell you “I don’t have to present an alternative theory in order to disagree with one I believe to be flawed or based on false premises....”, then I leave and continue doing my work in william type theory, which is also subject to GI, which I choose not to think about.
You get his point tho right? It’s basically this scott article
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/
Like, all of us need to have a position about what we value, because that’s what we use to guide our decisions. But all theories of ethics are “flawed”: basically they’re formulated in natural language, and none of the terms are on very firm mathematical footing.
But you should be very careful with using this as an argument against any specific ethical theory, because that line of reasoning enables you to discount any theory you don’t want to believe, even that theory actually has stronger arguments for it, by your own standards, than what you currently believe.
I think your proof example is not right, a better example is like:
I’m a mathematician and do tons of mathematical work. You show me your proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. I can’t find any real flaws in it, but I tell you its based on ZFC and ZFC is subject to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, and therefore we cant be sure the system you’re using to prove RH is even consistent, therefore I ignore your proof. You ask me what to use instead of ZFC, I tell you “I don’t have to present an alternative theory in order to disagree with one I believe to be flawed or based on false premises....”, then I leave and continue doing my work in william type theory, which is also subject to GI, which I choose not to think about.