I suspect that one should separate this into an Orthogonality Thesis-like argument that having different values makes it unlikely that you’ll be hit in the face by reality and into facts about the reality.
When you say things like “Convergence came not from a philosophical breakthrough, but from a breakdown of the political equilibrium between incompatible economic systems in the North and the South,” I take that as a true claim that the Southern system which permitted slavery was genuinely less capable of adopting new technologies and became outcompeted, which has a different implication. Similarly, claims like “philosophical fit matters too, and where it is misaligned, half-lives are shorter” also imply that there are objective properties of answers, which in turn mean that such properties can be discovered instead of being decided.
Interesting What I’m trying to do is feel my way towards a justified theory of morality. The stronger your justificatory architecture the more moral it feels. Institutional adoption, coherence with wider philosophical beliefs, alignment with science etc all feed into the justification. A very strongly justified moral belief will be so embedded that it will feel almost impossible to reject because of the damage it would do to so much else.
I suspect that one should separate this into an Orthogonality Thesis-like argument that having different values makes it unlikely that you’ll be hit in the face by reality and into facts about the reality.
When you say things like “Convergence came not from a philosophical breakthrough, but from a breakdown of the political equilibrium between incompatible economic systems in the North and the South,” I take that as a true claim that the Southern system which permitted slavery was genuinely less capable of adopting new technologies and became outcompeted, which has a different implication. Similarly, claims like “philosophical fit matters too, and where it is misaligned, half-lives are shorter” also imply that there are objective properties of answers, which in turn mean that such properties can be discovered instead of being decided.
Interesting What I’m trying to do is feel my way towards a justified theory of morality. The stronger your justificatory architecture the more moral it feels. Institutional adoption, coherence with wider philosophical beliefs, alignment with science etc all feed into the justification. A very strongly justified moral belief will be so embedded that it will feel almost impossible to reject because of the damage it would do to so much else.