Does Morality Exist? | Dr. Lance Bush
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2024
- In this video, I interviewed Dr. Lance Bush. Lance received his PhD from Cornell University in social psychology. However, his work has primarily been focused on the intersection between psychology and moral philosophy.
Lance is far from your typical moral anti-realist and this video hopes to illustrate how!
For more information on Dr. Lance Bush:
www.lanceindependent.com/
Also make sure to check out his RUclips channel 'Lance Independent' to view more of his content:
/ @lanceindependent
I'm a fan of Dr Bush's work and you did a great job interviewing him. Thank you for this content
Lance’s brain works on a different level. As complicated as these concepts are, he’s really good at explaining things that I can understand. It may seem like he’s all over the place if you’re not paying attention, but he’s really good at bringing everything together. I love his Phil-papers fallacy idea. Sometimes I feel like his expectations are set too high, but in a field where so many jump to conclusions, he’s an important voice in the philosophy and psychology fields. Highly recommend his Substack where he gets deep into the weeds on these things.
This is excellent content, thank you for posting this.
I’m glad you enjoyed it!❤️
Really appreciate this content! Thanks
No, thank you! I’m glad that you appreciate the content, more will be coming soon!
Very cool. It follows up from your last video nicely.
Thank you so much!❤
sure it does. it's sitting right next to the number seven in your brain
Of course it exists, it‘s a Fact of Reason 😉 (Kant)
What did you win the trophies for?
Glad you noticed! I won most of the trophies in debate. Some of the other trophies are from sports and singing competitions.
Dr Bush seems to be reducing the descriptive ("empirical") to stances people have. This seems like question begging (it's all merely stances).
(Which [i.e. stance-dependent anti-realism] is a "stance" [recursivity-pun] he doesn't seem committed to [anymore]. But this seems somewhat unrelated to the argument.)
Any help correcting my presumable misapprehension is appreciated!
Hi. I'm not quite sure I understand the objection so maybe we could discuss it so I can better understand where you're coming from.
I don't endorse stance-dependent accounts in particular. My view of stances also isn't restrictive to actual stances or to the stances of people; I think stances refer to any real or hypothetical standard to which a claim could be indexed. Sorry for the short sketch of a view
@@lanceindependent Your endorsement (or lack thereof) could be construed as a stance: The claim would be indexed as a hypothetical one.
My accusation was that any endorsement you (or another) may have, would be a 'real' (or "descriptive") matter.
I hope that helped explain it a little!
@@ReX0r I'm sorry, but I'm still unclear on what you're saying. My endorsement of what? And indexed as a hypothetical what?
//My accusation was that any endorsement you (or another) may have, would be a 'real' (or "descriptive") matter.//
If the claim is if I endorse some moral claim, like "stealing is wrong," that this would be a descriptive fact about me, that would be true. I'm not sure what the "accusation" is though.
@@lanceindependent Your endorsement of science such as sociology and social psychology to discover the stances people have (descriptive or empirical or stance-independent or real part).
Indexing (hypothetical) stances as hypotheticals regardless of actual (that is to say, descriptive/real/non-normative/not-merely-hypothetical) stances.
"actual" stances here refer to "the stances people have". Which you've decided to investigate (outside or merely hypothetical/normativity/moral realism/philosophy).
The "accusation" would be that you're limiting yourself to descriptive facts, thus begging the question of excluding normative facts (anti-realism stance you've committed yourself to in doing so).
The only (?)* alternative to this would be to include normative facts (or leave this possibility of moral realism open).
Or, perhaps not even this is an alternative*, as rather than question begging, what I'm getting at is a tautology (rather than something that can be assumed, or proved either by deductive logic or by some set of descriptive facts we've arrived at through induction).
Perhaps indexing hypotheticals does a lot of work here (in what is normatively/deductively possible or some other set of innovations and alternatives to what has been traditional in the field).
I'm entirely sure what semantic work it's doing here (dichotomy/antonym/as opposed to "real" stances people have that we can investigate and you've started doing as scientific -opposed to philosophical?- part).
In short: If it's a descriptive matter
(asking people what they think morality is)
if morality exists
(if lots of people have the stance that it's stance independent, than it's stance independent)
or if there are other ways
(indexing hypotheticals?)
of discovering this.
@@ReX0r Gotcha. Not sure how I'm begging any questions here. I don't think there are any irreducibly normative facts. That's just my position, not an argument for any particular conclusion. If someone wants to explain what an irreducibly normative fact is and then present a case for why I should think there are such things, they're welcome to do so. But operating without a belief in such things, and a belief that they do not exist, is not itself begging questions in any way I recognize.
It is staggering that people still believe in objective morality. If they do. I suspect that many people simply want to advertise their virtue. Indeed, that may be the whole purpose of consciousness.
Perhaps. My assessment is that often the moral intuitions that many people have drives a large part of their belief in objective morality. This may have further countenance after one reflects upon the question of whether morality seems to be the type of thing dependent upon subjects, where some would say that it doesn’t (e.g, Dr. Sampson, Dr. Huemer, Dr. McPherson, etc)
@@BraylenSamuel Intuitions can scarcely be called evidence. They differ widely from culture to culture. Our ‘moral’ feelings are entirely dependent upon our biology and social environment. There really isn’t any great mystery here.
@@davethebrahman9870 Good! It may very well be the case that our moral intuitions can be undermined as an evidential consideration favoring moral realism. However, my initial response was merely claiming that from my encounters with moral realists, they often believe in the verity of moral realism as a derivative of those moral intuitions. Whether the intuitions truly epistemically justify their moral and/or meta-ethical beliefs or not is a different concern.
@@BraylenSamuel OK, I took you to be saying you agreed. What do you think?
@@davethebrahman9870 Good question. Simply put, I’m highly skeptical of objective morality (if we are referring to moral facts that are mind-independent and categorically normative). I lean more towards moral error theory!