Most shameful of me to use someone’s term and define it as my beef with them. In my impressions, moral realism has also always involved moral non-corporalism if you will. As long as morality is safely stored in animal bodies, I’m fine with that.
The one in the youtube debate identified as a moral non-realist. But you see, his approach to the subject was different from mine, and that is a problem.
I think there more or less is a rationalist-lesswrongist view of what morality is, shared not by all but most rationalists (I wanted to say it’s explained in the sequences, but suspiciously I can’t find it in there).
I would say it’s perhaps indicative of a problem with academic philosophy. Unless that 62% is mostly moral corporalists, then it’s fine by me if they insist that “some moral propositions are objectively true or false”, I guess.
Most shameful of me to use someone’s term and define it as my beef with them. In my impressions, moral realism has also always involved moral non-corporalism if you will. As long as morality is safely stored in animal bodies, I’m fine with that.
The one in the youtube debate identified as a moral non-realist. But you see, his approach to the subject was different from mine, and that is a problem.
I think there more or less is a rationalist-lesswrongist view of what morality is, shared not by all but most rationalists (I wanted to say it’s explained in the sequences, but suspiciously I can’t find it in there).
I am making guesses about what you might be saying, because you are being unclear.
Well,.it doesn’t, and research will tell you that.
Which debate?
I’ve read the sequences ,band that’s why I say there is no clear theory.
I was responding to your correction of my definition of moral realism. I somewhat jokingly expressed shame for defining it idiosyncratically.
It can still be true of my impressions of it, like every time I saw someone arguing for moral realism.
I think it was this one, regretfully I’m being forced to embed it in my reply.
You were saying that there was a problem with philosophy itself.
I don’t recall saying that recently, though it’s true. I don’t know what you’re getting at.
That was a few hours ago.
I would say it’s perhaps indicative of a problem with academic philosophy. Unless that 62% is mostly moral corporalists, then it’s fine by me if they insist that “some moral propositions are objectively true or false”, I guess.
Maybe you could try listening the arguments. MR doesn’t have to be based on material entities or immaterial ones.
that’s a trick to make me be like them!
(I listened to some of that michael huemer talk and it seemed pretty dumb)