5 ms·

>Suppose you already have a solution in-hand for determining what the "best world" is, and everyone agrees on this definition of what is "right" and "good". It

>Suppose you already have a solution in-hand for determining what the "best world" is, and everyone agrees on this definition of what is "right" and "good". It doesn't matter whether people agree with it. It matters whether it's actually correct, and actually refers to real things. >Outside of religious and spiritual folks, I think most people agree that morality is socially constructed. Then stop talking about morality already. There's no point in spending massive sums of effort, money, and even military manpower on made-up constructions if you know damn well they're made up. (Mind, I don't think morality is made up: I'm a moral realist. Of course, religious folks aren't moral realists, they're usually just plain confused about what counts as "real", as are you, since you appear to think "real morality" means "morality enforced by a giant authority figure in the sky".)

mistermann 9y ago
> It doesn't matter whether people agree with it. It matters whether it's actually correct, and actually refers to real things. This debate suggests that is not a safe assumption. > There's no point If it redirects money, there certainly is a point.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  If someone is redirecting money by reference to things which apparently do not exist, it should be pointed out that they're duping everyone else, and that, so to speak, humanity will not be free until the last stone of the last church is cast upon the last priest. Or people could just admit moral realism every time they try to argue moral stuff. You know. Alternatives.
throwawayjava 9y ago
> It matters whether it's actually correct, and actually refers to real things. You're completely missing my point. Replace the quoted sentence with "Suppose you already have an actually correct morality that refers to real things". The computational intractability argument remains a damning condemnation of consequentialism. Just because you can state the theorem doesn't mean you can find the witnessing construction. > Then stop talking about morality already Just because things are socially constructed doesn't mean they aren't valuable, and it also doesn't mean that they have no effect on our lives. > There's no point in spending massive sums of effort, money, and even military manpower on made-up constructions if you know damn well they're made up. Why not? Why can't we just say some things are "self-evident" and worth fighting for? And if this is true, then why are moral considerations such potent rhetorical devices? The only possible explanation I can think of is extraordinarily condescending. > I'm a moral realist Now I'm even more confused. First, the realists play this game all the time; each branch of moral realism basically corresponds to a different -- usually embarrassingly pseudo-scientific -- way of justifying a priori ethical concerns. From my perspective, moral realism isn't an escape from the problem; it's just a way of ignoring the actually hard problem and playing games that are completely parametric in the actually hard problems. Second, the view of morality as a social construction isn't even inconsistent with moral realism as long as you're willing to go past whatever nice distinctions make for easy-to-grade multiple choice exams in PHIL 101. E.g., one plausible (and, per usual, embarrassingly pseudo-scientific) hypothesis bridging this divide is that morality is a social construction that necessarily arises from ethical intuitions that have a physiological basis.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >Why can't we just say some things are "self-evident" and worth fighting for? Because nothing is actually self-evident in the real world. It's all still made out of meat, with no convenient teletypes up to Plato's Heaven where the Self-Evident Propositions, Ideal Forms, and A Prioris live. "Self-evident and worth fighting for" isn't a factual claim, it's an effort to persuade people to believe (what you label) a delusion. >And if this is true, then why are moral considerations such potent rhetorical devices? The only possible explanation I can think of is extraordinarily condescending. Well, there are three possibilities here: * Typical antirealism. Moral appeals are in fact appeals to ontological delusion. This sounds condescending, but it's the corner you back yourself into by trying to have your moral appeals and your anti-realism at the same time. You're the one saying, "let's appeal to morality, but only ever to my morality, left completely unaccountable to external facts beyond my intuitions." If you tried that in math, physics, sociology, psychology -- you'd be thrown out of the room. * Moral appeals are used as verbal shortcuts to ultimately nonmoral things. For example, the moral stricture "do not harm the innocent" may ground out in "I feel empathetic pain when I see children get hurt". In this case, the moral appeal has a little bit more actual force, since it grounds out in a real motivation to which we can actually, well, appeal. In fact, if we can manage to talk about the rational content of that empathetic pain (something which antirealists vehemently disavow but which basically the entire rest of humanity for all of history upheld), we can achieve... * Moral realism: moral appeals work because they appeal to real things that have motivational power. The empathetic pain is a real moral motivation, pain is bad, especially when the damage it accompanies is too permanent for it to be a learning experience. This is the typical view among basically everyone who hasn't been carefully trained to pooh-pooh our innate emotions and motivations as having no normative force, and remains the majority opinion among both professional ethicists and laypeople. >First, the realists play this game all the time; each branch of moral realism basically corresponds to a different -- usually embarrassingly pseudo-scientific -- way of justifying a priori ethical concerns. Well, I usually don't see the pseudo-scientific ones. I usually see the pseudo-mathematical ones. But oh well, my ethical concerns are a posteriori, just like my epistemological, uh, knowledge. Mind, if I want to be dickishly precise, I'm a realist about value and interests at the organismic level, and merely observe that moral norms and imperatives at the social level often have deep anthropological reasons that ground out in the genuine interests of the individuals involved. Where they don't, those norms and imperatives tend to get changed over time. That might be a form of constructivism at the social level, but constructivism isn't really a form of realism or antirealism (it roughly says, "morality comes from running this algorithm on these data, but you might need some nonmoral interest to get someone running the algorithm at all), and it's actually different from naive social constructionism ("people make up morality, agree tentatively on things, and then use it to persuade each-other about stuff"). >From my perspective, moral realism isn't an escape from the problem; it's just a way of ignoring the actually hard problem and playing games that are completely parametric in the actually hard problems. Would you care to pose the actual hard problem, then? >E.g., one plausible (and, per usual, embarrassingly pseudo-scientific) hypothesis bridging this divide is that morality is a social construction that necessarily arises from ethical intuitions that have a physiological basis. That would still be a typical antirealist view, since it says that morality arises in a way that has nothing to do with moral facts as such. (The nasty tricky part is what you're willing to count as a moral or normative fact in the first place. Fix that and the questions get a lot clearer. Make that slippery and you get hundreds of years of philosophizing instead of knowing what to do.)

mistermann 9y ago

> It doesn't matter whether people agree with it. It matters whether it's actually correct, and actually refers to real things. This debate suggests that is not a safe assumption. > There's no point If it redirects money, there certainly is a point.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago
If someone is redirecting money by reference to things which apparently do not exist, it should be pointed out that they're duping everyone else, and that, so to speak, humanity will not be free until the last stone of the last church is cast upon the last priest. Or people could just admit moral realism every time they try to argue moral stuff. You know. Alternatives.

throwawayjava 9y ago

> It matters whether it's actually correct, and actually refers to real things. You're completely missing my point. Replace the quoted sentence with "Suppose you already have an actually correct morality that refers to real things". The computational intractability argument remains a damning condemnation of consequentialism. Just because you can state the theorem doesn't mean you can find the witnessing construction. > Then stop talking about morality already Just because things are socially constructed doesn't mean they aren't valuable, and it also doesn't mean that they have no effect on our lives. > There's no point in spending massive sums of effort, money, and even military manpower on made-up constructions if you know damn well they're made up. Why not? Why can't we just say some things are "self-evident" and worth fighting for? And if this is true, then why are moral considerations such potent rhetorical devices? The only possible explanation I can think of is extraordinarily condescending. > I'm a moral realist Now I'm even more confused. First, the realists play this game all the time; each branch of moral realism basically corresponds to a different -- usually embarrassingly pseudo-scientific -- way of justifying a priori ethical concerns. From my perspective, moral realism isn't an escape from the problem; it's just a way of ignoring the actually hard problem and playing games that are completely parametric in the actually hard problems. Second, the view of morality as a social construction isn't even inconsistent with moral realism as long as you're willing to go past whatever nice distinctions make for easy-to-grade multiple choice exams in PHIL 101. E.g., one plausible (and, per usual, embarrassingly pseudo-scientific) hypothesis bridging this divide is that morality is a social construction that necessarily arises from ethical intuitions that have a physiological basis.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>Why can't we just say some things are "self-evident" and worth fighting for? Because nothing is actually self-evident in the real world. It's all still made out of meat, with no convenient teletypes up to Plato's Heaven where the Self-Evident Propositions, Ideal Forms, and A Prioris live. "Self-evident and worth fighting for" isn't a factual claim, it's an effort to persuade people to believe (what you label) a delusion. >And if this is true, then why are moral considerations such potent rhetorical devices? The only possible explanation I can think of is extraordinarily condescending. Well, there are three possibilities here: * Typical antirealism. Moral appeals are in fact appeals to ontological delusion. This sounds condescending, but it's the corner you back yourself into by trying to have your moral appeals and your anti-realism at the same time. You're the one saying, "let's appeal to morality, but only ever to my morality, left completely unaccountable to external facts beyond my intuitions." If you tried that in math, physics, sociology, psychology -- you'd be thrown out of the room. * Moral appeals are used as verbal shortcuts to ultimately nonmoral things. For example, the moral stricture "do not harm the innocent" may ground out in "I feel empathetic pain when I see children get hurt". In this case, the moral appeal has a little bit more actual force, since it grounds out in a real motivation to which we can actually, well, appeal. In fact, if we can manage to talk about the rational content of that empathetic pain (something which antirealists vehemently disavow but which basically the entire rest of humanity for all of history upheld), we can achieve... * Moral realism: moral appeals work because they appeal to real things that have motivational power. The empathetic pain is a real moral motivation, pain is bad, especially when the damage it accompanies is too permanent for it to be a learning experience. This is the typical view among basically everyone who hasn't been carefully trained to pooh-pooh our innate emotions and motivations as having no normative force, and remains the majority opinion among both professional ethicists and laypeople. >First, the realists play this game all the time; each branch of moral realism basically corresponds to a different -- usually embarrassingly pseudo-scientific -- way of justifying a priori ethical concerns. Well, I usually don't see the pseudo-scientific ones. I usually see the pseudo-mathematical ones. But oh well, my ethical concerns are a posteriori, just like my epistemological, uh, knowledge. Mind, if I want to be dickishly precise, I'm a realist about value and interests at the organismic level, and merely observe that moral norms and imperatives at the social level often have deep anthropological reasons that ground out in the genuine interests of the individuals involved. Where they don't, those norms and imperatives tend to get changed over time. That might be a form of constructivism at the social level, but constructivism isn't really a form of realism or antirealism (it roughly says, "morality comes from running this algorithm on these data, but you might need some nonmoral interest to get someone running the algorithm at all), and it's actually different from naive social constructionism ("people make up morality, agree tentatively on things, and then use it to persuade each-other about stuff"). >From my perspective, moral realism isn't an escape from the problem; it's just a way of ignoring the actually hard problem and playing games that are completely parametric in the actually hard problems. Would you care to pose the actual hard problem, then? >E.g., one plausible (and, per usual, embarrassingly pseudo-scientific) hypothesis bridging this divide is that morality is a social construction that necessarily arises from ethical intuitions that have a physiological basis. That would still be a typical antirealist view, since it says that morality arises in a way that has nothing to do with moral facts as such. (The nasty tricky part is what you're willing to count as a moral or normative fact in the first place. Fix that and the questions get a lot clearer. Make that slippery and you get hundreds of years of philosophizing instead of knowing what to do.)