Moral Realism | Dr. Eric Sampson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- In this interview, I talk with Dr. Eric Sampson about moral realism! Dr. Eric Sampson is an assistant professor at Purdue University. Dr. Sampson's work primarily focuses on defending the existence of objective moral properties.
Dr. Eric Sampson was a huge philosophical influence for me because he has been EXTREMELY helpful in bringing these great philosophical issues to my attention. Consequently, I'm proud to say that he was the first person I contacted for a philosophy interview!
-----------------------------
During the course of the discussion, I made reference to his paper 'Moorean Arguments Against the Error Theory: A Defense'. Here's a link to his paper:
philpapers.org...
For more information on Dr. Sampson:
www.erictsampso...
I love you guys and I hope that we are able to make philosophical progress together!
![VENEZUELA vs. ARGENTINA [1-1] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SJfoPdeOPCQ/mqdefault.jpg)
23:30 The reasons come from stances. They are owed to stances (ought=owed). You care about satisfying your hunger. You have concerns about surviving. You have cares & concerns about the kid and his family.
26:00 is exactly right.
27:00 Well-formed moral propositions are indeed descriptive. You turn them normative by depersonalizing them either by omitting their stance-drivers (turning "justify" into "is justified," "permit" into "is permissible/permitted," "obligate" into "is obligatory/obligated," etc.) and/or reifying them as object properties (e.g., "The durian is delicious for its own sake"). Normativity is just "description, truncated of its stances, and now flying above the mundane."
29:00 We have a storm of desires to which we're "indebted." But they are often in conflict, hence we have reasons to do this, reasons to do that, and so forth. "For these purposes/motivations" does indeed fall out of "what's the reason you did that?"
30:00 Truth-aspiration is a stance; it isn't absolute, e.g., where some hard truth would ruin a life. "You shouldn't stab" is a stance; it isn't absolute, e.g., in a time of war.
35:46 The steelman is not that irrealists are always calling it "weird faculty." Moral realism postures as mere stance-independence but it requires a controversial premise of moral accessibility. Intuitions and plausible-sounding-ness can vary, and vary wildly, across similarly intelligent & aware people.
37:45 The so-called supervenience of murder and wrongness is lexical; murder is defined as some form of "wrong killing" that carries normative connotations (which just shifts the argument about what sense of wrongness we mean, e.g., vs. "utility," vs. some stance X, vs. God's laws, vs. state law, etc.). The strict supervenience is unsurprising on irrealism and does not promote realism in the least.
41:53 When we say "you should reject stance-independence" we are appealing to stances like truth-aspirance and coherence-aspirance. Some irrealists are actually ambivalent about evangelizing it because they see the power of moral realist truncations as something overall useful for society! In any case, using "shoulds" under irrealism isn't inconsistent, you're just forgetting about where our reasons come from -- stances -- when they aren't explicitly mentioned. And, really, that's the crux of the issue, isn't it?
46:00 Those aren't stance-independent goals. There's a regress of stance-dependency that we opt to sever.
Right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
I would like to add, wrt intuition and moral access, that if a philosopher goes out of his way to say (36:45) "but that's just what EVERYONE is using!", then _he's probably dead wrong._ Just an observation of mine. Everyone has lots of mistaken assumptions about what everyone else is doing.
Also, I'm a math nerd, and that phrase of yours "description, truncated of its stances, and now flying above the mundane" gives me huge "Yoneda Lemma" vibes. Maybe the mathematical world can have its own "normativity" in a similar fashion?
@@СергейМакеев-ж2н Sometimes I imagine myself pretty good at math and then I try to read about "Yoneda Lemma" and my engine bursts into flames
From Lance Independent's Channel. Subbed.
Much appreciated!❤
Likewise!
dhamma:
the Pāli cognate of “dharma”. However, in this case, it invariably refers to the teachings of Gautama Buddha, rather than the eternal law (“sanātana dharma”, in Sanskrit). In this book, it is used in the former sense, that is, of “holy and righteous concepts and deeds”. Therefore, the term “Buddhist dhamma/dharma” is somewhat nonsensical, since dhamma/dharma is fundamentally non-sectarian.
Despite being the most atheistic human being to have ever existed, I often PRAY that I am not in the process of consuming a meal whenever I hear a Buddhist monk or lay teacher referring to his or her lecture as being a “dhamma talk”. If you have carefully read the entirety of this Holy Scripture, “F.I.S.H”, and you have listened to many Buddhist sermons, you may have already guessed the reason for my fervent prayer. This is because the assertion that the overwhelming majority of Buddhist monks are teaching authentic dharma, is so excruciatingly cringe-worthy and laughable, I am genuinely fearful of choking on my food upon hearing such silly claims!
First of all, the founder of Buddhism himself, Siddhārtha Gautama was hardly a paragon of virtue, having abandoned his family in order to become a mendicant monk, being an animal-abusing carnist, and encouraging females to become loose women (so-called “nuns”). In my half a century of life, I have only ever encountered one or two Buddhists who adhered to (actual) dharma, so in that sense, they were factually SUPERIOR to Gautama himself! For instance, the abbot of the largest Buddhist society in my homeland, Australia, believes that it is dharmic (legitimate) for men to insert their reproductive organs inside the faeces holes of other men, and of course, like his idol, Gautama, he is a murderer of poor, innocent, defenceless animals, and a filthy feminist. Furthermore, despite being an indigenous Englishman, and a graduate of one of the most prestigious universities on earth, University of Cambridge, he is entirely unable to coherently speak his native tongue! Should not a supposed “spiritual leader” be an exemplar in at least his own language?
Of course, no human being (including so-called “Avatars”) who has ever lived was morally perfect, but those who claim to be spiritual masters ought to be beyond reproach in respect to their own ethical practices. In the aforementioned case, Gautama should have returned to his family as soon as he understood the immorality of his actions, just as I, when I began adhering to dharma, repaid two persons from whom I had stolen goods and cash. Furthermore, assuming that Gautama was really a carnist (and knowing the typical diet of Bhārata, it would be safe to assume that he was at LEAST a lacto-vegetarian, and therefore an animal-abusing criminal), he was certainly sufficiently intelligent to understand that it is unnatural for an adult human to suckle the teats of a cow or a goat, and that human beings are fully herbivorous. Otherwise, how could he possibly be considered a member of the priestly class of society (“brāhmaṇa”, in Sanskrit) if he was not able to even comprehend some of the most basic facts of life? Make no mistake, carnism (see that entry in this Glossary) is a truly abominable, horrendous, wicked, hateful, evil, immoral, sinful, demonic ideology, as is feminism and unlawful divorce (in the case of Prince Gautama, the abandonment of his wife and son would be considered an act of divorce).
When a so-called Zen Buddhist priest asks another MALE so-called Zen Buddhist priest (as occurred in a video interview I just watched on the Internet), "Do you and your husband have any kids?”, one can be fully assured that the lowest point in the history of humanity has been reached. The fact that both the aforementioned so-called priests are American men, is not coincidental, since the most decadent religionists seem to be of Western/first-world origin. I don't believe I have come across a single Western Buddhist monastic who is not at least slightly left-leaning (“leftism” being a common term in the English-speaking world for “adharmic”).
Great videoooo
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Dude got BTFO'd by Lance Bush. Moral realism is dumb.
You had already made up your mind before you saw that interview, and you're treating this like you're a member of a football fan club. Mature.
He didn’t get BTFOd, neither side got btfod in that debate lmao.
daddy bray
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Ohh this is where the "maybe philosophy isn't your thing" line came from. What an awful response.