Many thanks to Professor Graham Oppy! Here are the chapter markers: 0:00 Intro 3:43 Cricket 5:50 Metaphysical naturalism 7:19 Moral realism & moral naturalism 9:39 Is/ought - Hume's razor 10:34 Can facts about the world inform morals? 11:36 Getting a kick out of suffering 12:43 What makes a good argument? 15:48 Epistemic humility & argumentation 20:16 William Lane Craig 21:01 What should it take to change one's mind? 22:19 Overconfidence 24:14 Overturning cherished beliefs 25:23 Camo Jackson & Hector Monroe
Yes, Lance Bush is a moral anti-realist - he did debate Eric Sampson (moral realist) who I interviewed recently - it went for >4 hrs - not yet edited and uploaded...
Regarding moral realism, the way I see it is this: As an individual I have certain values that regards what ought to be, what ought to be done, what shouldn't be done, and so on, and other people seem to have in various ways overlapping values (whether they take the form of utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics or some less distilled form of ethics). It seems very reasonable to assume that values like these have developed as part of our continuing adaptations to better survive and procreate in our environments. So far so good. But I don't understand what it would mean for there to be "moral truths", other than in the sense that it is true that person X has and expresses value Y, etc. Holding and enforcing certain values may e.g. lead to certain death, and in turn lead to those values disappearing, but I don't see how that would make them wrong. Let's say that some kind of global consensus that Y is good appear, based on what everybody agrees is conclusive evidence. What would it mean if a person Z appears who say that he doesn't care about those alleged moral truths and instead hold that Y is bad, breaking with the consensus moral M1 and instead forming M2 that may or may not start to attract followers? Would those moral truths even matter?
The interview was at Graham's office at Monash Uni in Melbourne Australia. Graham does discuss the people in the background at 25:23 - they are Camo Jackson and Hector Monroe
Always nice to see Graham.
We agree!
Probably my fav philosopher
I might be hosting Graham Oppy and David Dowe next year on AI and the Turing Test
Many thanks to Professor Graham Oppy!
Here are the chapter markers:
0:00 Intro
3:43 Cricket
5:50 Metaphysical naturalism
7:19 Moral realism & moral naturalism
9:39 Is/ought - Hume's razor
10:34 Can facts about the world inform morals?
11:36 Getting a kick out of suffering
12:43 What makes a good argument?
15:48 Epistemic humility & argumentation
20:16 William Lane Craig
21:01 What should it take to change one's mind?
22:19 Overconfidence
24:14 Overturning cherished beliefs
25:23 Camo Jackson & Hector Monroe
Great interview!
Glad you liked it!
A conversation between Graham and Lance Bush on morality would be the bees knees.
Yes, Lance Bush is a moral anti-realist - he did debate Eric Sampson (moral realist) who I interviewed recently - it went for >4 hrs - not yet edited and uploaded...
I'm easy to reach.
@@lanceindependent Hi Lance, behind in video editing, and happy to chat
Good god please make this happen
@@hiker-uy1bi I will relate to Graham Oppy and David Dowe that people are praying to God for their discussion to happen :)
Great video, ♥️ Graham
Excellent interview. Thanks.
my pleasure
Regarding moral realism, the way I see it is this:
As an individual I have certain values that regards what ought to be, what ought to be done, what shouldn't be done, and so on, and other people seem to have in various ways overlapping values (whether they take the form of utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics or some less distilled form of ethics). It seems very reasonable to assume that values like these have developed as part of our continuing adaptations to better survive and procreate in our environments. So far so good. But I don't understand what it would mean for there to be "moral truths", other than in the sense that it is true that person X has and expresses value Y, etc. Holding and enforcing certain values may e.g. lead to certain death, and in turn lead to those values disappearing, but I don't see how that would make them wrong.
Let's say that some kind of global consensus that Y is good appear, based on what everybody agrees is conclusive evidence. What would it mean if a person Z appears who say that he doesn't care about those alleged moral truths and instead hold that Y is bad, breaking with the consensus moral M1 and instead forming M2 that may or may not start to attract followers? Would those moral truths even matter?
Lovely interview, was this shot in Graham's house? if so i would love to know who the people on the wall are
The interview was at Graham's office at Monash Uni in Melbourne Australia. Graham does discuss the people in the background at 25:23 - they are Camo Jackson and Hector Monroe