Geoffrey MillerVerified account

I was reading the original tweet naively, but now I'm thinking that perhaps you just meant to say that reject the views that lead to potential conflicts.

Another obvious example: certain radical views about personal identity might be incompatible with various values related to desert, or even with treating differently self-sacrifice and other-sacrifice.

I suspect that in such cases we'd easily be able to make compensating conceptual adjustments so that our valuing practices remaining substantially unaffected. The devil would be in the detail of course.

I guess the question I would want to ask is: “why should we be so sure that our valuing practices are getting something right”. Perhaps free will compatibilism, for example, makes the kind of mistake that follows from holding fast to unjustified normative assumptions...

Sure, we could rethink our valuing practices; I'm just doubting that science or metaphysics could require us to so. Values are, as it were, manifest image stuff.

I guess you could say the same about phenomenal qualities, right?

No. We already have wordly colours, smells, tastes, pains, etc in the MI. Their mental counterparts are theoretical posits which would belong to the SI if they belonged anywhere.

And we already have worldly constraints on behavior, as well as internal systems that regulate our sensitivity to those comstraints. Why are you so certain that things are different in the ethical case?