Wow. Way over my head. Will have to read and graph it until I can ~ see, and then discuss it. In the mean time, I'm left searching for and reading comparative assessments of the metaethic frameworks used by LLMs (e.g., Claude.) And … would a “Jesus in a Box” AI product disclose it metaethical construct, and biases. 😬
This is fantastic. I’m still not 100% clear where you’re grounding your realism though — are you basically a Kantian?
I’ve got a piece in draft (very low in the queue, waiting for a few more brain waves to sharpen it up) that pushes back on your “if Street debunks realism in ethics, then math is next” point. I’ll remember to kick it your way when it’s done.
This is excellent, grounded in the texts and provides a compelling overview of the compass of metaethics. It took me back to my undergraduate philosophy and ethics courses, with both joy and curiosity. I might have to pull out some of my old books for a reread.
"Moral facts are real, mind-independent, not grounded in any will or preference."
Moral facts arguably are mind-dependent. In other words, without a creature with a mind sufficient to experience pain or happiness, there would be no moral facts. Moral facts exist because minded creatures experience varying conscious states, from agony to ecstasy. There's no morality without minds, therefore moral facts are mind-dependent. No?
Agents could be relevant to moral propositions in the same way that two rocks could be relevant to an arithmetic operation. But the mainline position within moral realism (particularly non-naturalism) is that minds do not ground (create) moral truths or moral facts. They discover them. Like discovering 1+1=2.
This is great. I might make a further distinction between universal and absolute, which kind of collapses the relative/universal distinction. Seems to me that some things can be universally binding for only a few people or even just one person—but I am largely in agreement with you. It’s exciting to see these views making a comeback. We will win.
Never considered that I'm self-indulgent, but did just look it up. 🤔 Thx.
Wow. Way over my head. Will have to read and graph it until I can ~ see, and then discuss it. In the mean time, I'm left searching for and reading comparative assessments of the metaethic frameworks used by LLMs (e.g., Claude.) And … would a “Jesus in a Box” AI product disclose it metaethical construct, and biases. 😬
I’m available to answer questions. Just fyi.
This is fantastic. I’m still not 100% clear where you’re grounding your realism though — are you basically a Kantian?
I’ve got a piece in draft (very low in the queue, waiting for a few more brain waves to sharpen it up) that pushes back on your “if Street debunks realism in ethics, then math is next” point. I’ll remember to kick it your way when it’s done.
Awesome summary!
This is excellent, grounded in the texts and provides a compelling overview of the compass of metaethics. It took me back to my undergraduate philosophy and ethics courses, with both joy and curiosity. I might have to pull out some of my old books for a reread.
Thx. I gave it the old college try, as they say. (Even tho I'm not formally educated.)
"Moral facts are real, mind-independent, not grounded in any will or preference."
Moral facts arguably are mind-dependent. In other words, without a creature with a mind sufficient to experience pain or happiness, there would be no moral facts. Moral facts exist because minded creatures experience varying conscious states, from agony to ecstasy. There's no morality without minds, therefore moral facts are mind-dependent. No?
Agents could be relevant to moral propositions in the same way that two rocks could be relevant to an arithmetic operation. But the mainline position within moral realism (particularly non-naturalism) is that minds do not ground (create) moral truths or moral facts. They discover them. Like discovering 1+1=2.
This is great. I might make a further distinction between universal and absolute, which kind of collapses the relative/universal distinction. Seems to me that some things can be universally binding for only a few people or even just one person—but I am largely in agreement with you. It’s exciting to see these views making a comeback. We will win.
This was great, Quinn! I loved my ethics courses in college and at grad school, but it’s been a looong time for both. Good to have a refresher.