I’m not well-positioned to think about your prioritization, for all I know you’re probably prioritizing well! I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
And I guess you’re making the general point that I shouldn’t put too much stake into “my sequence hasn’t gotten much in terms of concrete pushback,” because it could well be that there are people who would have concrete pushback but don’t think it’s worth commenting since it’s not clear if many people other than myself would be interested. That’s fair!
(But then, probably more people than just me would be interested in a post or sequence on why moral realism is true, for reasons other than deferring, so those object-level arguments should better be put online somewhere!)
And I guess you’re making the general point that I shouldn’t put too much stake into “my sequence hasn’t gotten much in terms of concrete pushback,” because it could well be that there are people who would have concrete pushback but don’t think it’s worth commenting since it’s not clear if many people other than myself would be interested. That’s fair!
Yeah, I should have framed my reply in these terms instead of my personal prioritization. Thanks for doing the interpretive work here.
(But then, probably more people than just me would be interested in a post or sequence on why moral realism is true, for reasons other than deferring, so those object-level arguments should better be put online somewhere!)
There must be a lot of academic papers posted online by philosophers who defend moral realism? For example Knowing What Matters by Richard Y Chappell (who is also in EA). There are also a couple of blog posts by people in EA:
But I haven’t read these and don’t know if they engage with your specific arguments against moral realism. If they haven’t, and you can’t find any sources that do, maybe write a post highlighting that, e.g., “Here are some strong arguments against moral realism that hasn’t been addressed anywhere online”. Or it would be even stronger if you can make the claim that they haven’t been addressed anywhere period, including the academic literature.
Just to add on to this point here, I have also now skimmed the sequence bases on your recommended starting points as well, but it did not connect yet with me much.
My admittedly very ad hoc analysis would be that some parts seem already well integrated in my mind and the overall scope doesn’t see to catch on to something fundamental I think about.
I wonder what the big takeaways are supposed to be.
..
I think LW in general suffers a bit from this: Not laying out clearly and explicitly in advance where the reader is supposed to end up.
Case in point this post: Low effort, left conclusions somewhat open because I thought it quite straightforward where I am at. Half the people reading misunderstand it, incl. my position. Compare to my super high effort posts with meticulous edits, which nobody even reads. LW style does not favor clarity. Never has, afaik.
I’m not well-positioned to think about your prioritization, for all I know you’re probably prioritizing well! I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
And I guess you’re making the general point that I shouldn’t put too much stake into “my sequence hasn’t gotten much in terms of concrete pushback,” because it could well be that there are people who would have concrete pushback but don’t think it’s worth commenting since it’s not clear if many people other than myself would be interested. That’s fair!
(But then, probably more people than just me would be interested in a post or sequence on why moral realism is true, for reasons other than deferring, so those object-level arguments should better be put online somewhere!)
Yeah, I should have framed my reply in these terms instead of my personal prioritization. Thanks for doing the interpretive work here.
There must be a lot of academic papers posted online by philosophers who defend moral realism? For example Knowing What Matters by Richard Y Chappell (who is also in EA). There are also a couple of blog posts by people in EA:
https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/moral-truth-without-substance
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/n5bePqoC46pGZJzqL/debate-morality-is-objective
But I haven’t read these and don’t know if they engage with your specific arguments against moral realism. If they haven’t, and you can’t find any sources that do, maybe write a post highlighting that, e.g., “Here are some strong arguments against moral realism that hasn’t been addressed anywhere online”. Or it would be even stronger if you can make the claim that they haven’t been addressed anywhere period, including the academic literature.
Just to add on to this point here, I have also now skimmed the sequence bases on your recommended starting points as well, but it did not connect yet with me much.
My admittedly very ad hoc analysis would be that some parts seem already well integrated in my mind and the overall scope doesn’t see to catch on to something fundamental I think about.
I wonder what the big takeaways are supposed to be.
..
I think LW in general suffers a bit from this: Not laying out clearly and explicitly in advance where the reader is supposed to end up.
Case in point this post: Low effort, left conclusions somewhat open because I thought it quite straightforward where I am at. Half the people reading misunderstand it, incl. my position. Compare to my super high effort posts with meticulous edits, which nobody even reads. LW style does not favor clarity. Never has, afaik.