the coveted direction (see, for instance, natural law theory which according, inter alia, to Bentham’s analysis has tended to mistake an evaluation, or the value of a certain condition’s potential existence, for its actual reality and existence121) thus presupposing what is to be demonstrated.The second reason is the fact that values and evaluations often take the form of a judgment,122 an expression whose truth value is possible to determine by reference to objective factors such as facts and logical demonstration, which according to Hägerström is not the case.123 Consequently, values and other and evaluative standpoints must be excluded from scientific argumentation and demonstration, since they are neither true nor false, or only false, or meaningless (insofar as they, despite their theoretical form, do not refer to objective reality). Since not even the assumption that every moral subject shares a common morality proves the existence of a universally objective moral principle, it appears as if Hägerström’s meta-theory on morals is impossible to refute. Granted that every moral subject actually shares a common set of values, this state of affairs in itself will not constitute evidence that these specific values and valuations are truly objective and universal.The possible occurrence of a universal acceptance of common values, and so on will only prove that this specific group of moral subjects shares a common set of specific values. Any attempt to extrapolate this observation to an apodictically certain law is thus, logically speaking, highly debatable.There is thus no absolute proof of specip a r t i v, c h a p t e r 3 282 121 Bentham,“Anarchical Fallacies,” inNonsense upon Stilts. See especially page 53where Bentham writes: “In proportion to the want of happiness resulting from the want of rights, a reason exists for wishing that there were such things as rights. But reasons for wishing there were such things as rights, are not rights; - a reason for wishing that a certain right were established, is not that right - want is not supply - hunger is not bread.” 122 Petersson, Värdeteori, pp. 126-129. 123 Cf. ibid., pp. 162-168. 3. 10 addenda: i s i t pos s i ble to re fute häge r ström’s moral theory?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=