The claim behind my “But we humans can’t even do that!” is a weaker one: there are some moral questions with no consensus answer, or where there is a consensus but some people flout it. In situations like these people sometimes even accuse other people outright of not knowing right from wrong, or incredulously ask, “don’t you know right from wrong?”
Absence of consensus does not imply absence of objective truth
I see no necessary reason why the same issues wouldn’t crop up for other, smarter intelligences.
i don’t know about “necessary” but “they’re smarter” is possible and reasonably likely.
Absence of consensus does not imply absence of objective truth
i don’t know about “necessary” but “they’re smarter” is possible and reasonably likely.
Correct, but that doesn’t bear on my claim. Moral disagreements exist, whether or not there’s objective moral truth.
It’s possible, but I don’t know any convincing arguments for why it’s likely, while I can think of plausibility arguments for why it’s unlikely.