ETA: Retracted this as it was based on a typo in the parent.
FW and MR are indefensible in non naive forms
My understanding of Eliezer’s positions on both of these in that they fall under the umbrella of non-naive forms of FW and MR. So they are in fact defended, and not only by Eliezer, but by many prominent intellectual figures. You need only look up the usual encyclopedic sources for a list of names. So as a matter of empirical fact, serious people take them seriously, whether to agree or disagree. That is, they are defensible.
Perhaps what you mean is not “indefensible” but merely “wrong”?
My recent post on average utilitarianism lends support to moral realism. That’s why I found it surprising, and why I found it surprising that (presumably non-moral-realist) people here could read it, give it some credence, yet not consider it important.
Naïve free will, and moral realism. Related to religion, but, I think, distinct.
Good call, but comments on OB posts dealing with these subjects suggest far from “just about everyone here” has seen through them.
It’s not even clear that “just about everyone here” has abandoned theism. I suspect the theists in our midst keep their mouths shut.
Who has regularly made comments on OB and is still a moral realist, Nick?
I’m a moral realist and a compatibilist about free will. I know others who are elimnitavists about free will. Does that count?
Sure does. Thanks.
FW and MR are defensible in non naive forms, and just about any naive theory is wrong. So why was pick on MR and FW?
ETA: Retracted this as it was based on a typo in the parent.
My understanding of Eliezer’s positions on both of these in that they fall under the umbrella of non-naive forms of FW and MR. So they are in fact defended, and not only by Eliezer, but by many prominent intellectual figures. You need only look up the usual encyclopedic sources for a list of names. So as a matter of empirical fact, serious people take them seriously, whether to agree or disagree. That is, they are defensible.
Perhaps what you mean is not “indefensible” but merely “wrong”?
I meant defensible. Edited.
My recent post on average utilitarianism lends support to moral realism. That’s why I found it surprising, and why I found it surprising that (presumably non-moral-realist) people here could read it, give it some credence, yet not consider it important.