I fully agree. It's kind of like saying "Anger" exists in a way where if every sentient beings ceased to exist, anger would still exist. Objective values seems to be the same mistake early economists made regarding objective value. Value is subjective.
@@mf_hume Fair enough. Yeah, more graphics and text on screen can help communicate the points, I agree. It can be a bit tedious though, but I might try to do more on the next video like this.
@@Friction I totally understand that. And fwiw, I'd bet that most of your viewers are like me: they like those things when you have them, but it's not going to make or break the video.
Please consider the following view: There is some moral 'fact' that, while not strictly objective as it is dependent on the existence of minds, is not subjective in the sense of being dependent on personal preferences of an individual - rather it is true for all beings with minds, independent of personal preference (perhaps due to the nature of minds). (This moral fact might intuitively seem objective, only in the sense that it is *universal* across the domain of beings with minds, but not in the sense of being mind independent.) Is there a word or phrase for a view like this? 'Universalism' perhaps? Is this view intelligible to you, Friction (and others)? All constructive comments appreciated.
There obviously are features which all minds share. Are there preferences which they all share, and perhaps must all share? I'm very doubtful of that, but of course I understand it. Regardless, I wonder why we would call this or some other common feature "moral".
@@Friction not to mention the realist with a different view could still just say that everyone who recognizes this common preference, are just directly out of accord with the actual stance independent moral fact.
So you made a guess at the end of the video, namely that you believe that moral realists probably don't have anything intelligible in mind when using those terms. Fair enough. So let me, as a realist, make a guess as well: Deep down you know perfectly well what those terms mean, it's just easier to reject stance-independence because moral anti-realism is clearly the position which demands less of you and is thus more comfortable.
@@RefinedQualia The combination of moral realism + moral rationalism entails that there is always something that you ought (not) do, independently of your goals and desires. This is incredibly demanding and is very uncomfortable for many anti-realists
I find it funny that in your explanation for why I deny that I understand the terms, you appeal to something else entirely unintelligible to me, that my view "demands less" of me. Sorry, I equally have no idea what that means (and don't think that you do either).
This is the equivalent of saying atheist or agnostics don’t affirm belief in God even though they know deep down that he exists and it’s more comfortable to continue sinning if you say don’t affirm their existence. Lmaooo
I fully agree. It's kind of like saying "Anger" exists in a way where if every sentient beings ceased to exist, anger would still exist. Objective values seems to be the same mistake early economists made regarding objective value. Value is subjective.
Super crisp video. Keep it up!
Thanks! Is it worse without my video? I wonder if people care about that at all.
@@Friction Tbh I listened to it in the shower so I didn’t even know there was no video. I followed just fine that way
I did like the fine tuning video you did where you had brief outlines on the side. I think that’s more helpful than seeing your video
@@mf_hume Fair enough. Yeah, more graphics and text on screen can help communicate the points, I agree. It can be a bit tedious though, but I might try to do more on the next video like this.
@@Friction I totally understand that. And fwiw, I'd bet that most of your viewers are like me: they like those things when you have them, but it's not going to make or break the video.
Nice, really liked this.
Please consider the following view:
There is some moral 'fact' that, while not strictly objective as it is dependent on the existence of minds, is not subjective in the sense of being dependent on personal preferences of an individual - rather it is true for all beings with minds, independent of personal preference (perhaps due to the nature of minds).
(This moral fact might intuitively seem objective, only in the sense that it is *universal* across the domain of beings with minds, but not in the sense of being mind independent.)
Is there a word or phrase for a view like this? 'Universalism' perhaps?
Is this view intelligible to you, Friction (and others)?
All constructive comments appreciated.
There obviously are features which all minds share. Are there preferences which they all share, and perhaps must all share? I'm very doubtful of that, but of course I understand it. Regardless, I wonder why we would call this or some other common feature "moral".
@@Friction not to mention the realist with a different view could still just say that everyone who recognizes this common preference, are just directly out of accord with the actual stance independent moral fact.
14:33
So you made a guess at the end of the video, namely that you believe that moral realists probably don't have anything intelligible in mind when using those terms. Fair enough.
So let me, as a realist, make a guess as well: Deep down you know perfectly well what those terms mean, it's just easier to reject stance-independence because moral anti-realism is clearly the position which demands less of you and is thus more comfortable.
"Moral anti-realism demands less of us" What is it that moral realism demands?
@@RefinedQualia The combination of moral realism + moral rationalism entails that there is always something that you ought (not) do, independently of your goals and desires. This is incredibly demanding and is very uncomfortable for many anti-realists
@@dominiks5068 Lets suppose there is always something you ought do, where exactly does the demand to be in accord with that norm arrive from?
I find it funny that in your explanation for why I deny that I understand the terms, you appeal to something else entirely unintelligible to me, that my view "demands less" of me. Sorry, I equally have no idea what that means (and don't think that you do either).
This is the equivalent of saying atheist or agnostics don’t affirm belief in God even though they know deep down that he exists and it’s more comfortable to continue sinning if you say don’t affirm their existence. Lmaooo