RobTheMonk8's video: Re: Veritas48 and the question of Normativity

What lends force to an "ought?" Empiricism, concerning itself exclusively with what can be observed seems impotent to resolve this question. Isn't it clear enough that no observation will ever be made which suggests clearly why we humans speak in "oughts" and prescriptions? Well. Nope. I suggest that emotions (like empathy) and values instilled in the course of socialization combine with observations of the world to produce ways that we would like to see things pan out. I also suggest that this is a better explanation of and foundation for prescriptions than God, not just because God must be presupposed for the latter, but also because the naturalistic explanation explains a great deal more, like how and why some people are utterly unmoved by prescriptions, and why some cultures have exhibited behavior we would collectively brand abhorrent. Veritas says that the naturalistic fallacy precludes an atheist from ever generating a prescription, but I think what he means to say is that it precludes the possibility of generating a prescription that speaks with equal force to everyone. This, at least, is a matter empiricism can probably decide: no such prescription has ever been discovered, no "ought" has ever been found to be without-exception. Prisons are filled with examples supporting this point and, even if you insist that most of these people knew what they ought to have done and did it anyway, there are still extreme examples that can't be counted among the rest of us. The general prescriptions accepted across all/most cultures have exceptions which vary from culture to culture so... ultimately, I think a naturalistic explanation isn't just "as good" as his explanation- but far better.