Ah...this is the ontological vs epistemological distinction. One can be epistemologically objective about ontologically subjective states (in other words, states of mind). I'm not lying, etc (being subjective in the first sense) if I say "I'm thinking of a cat" (if I am).
-
-
Replying to @ToKTeacher @SumGai10 and
I think
@SumGai10 is alluding to the possibility of conflicting values between subjects, rather than the possibility of knowing what another subject values.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DoqxaScott @ToKTeacher and
Yes that's what I was hoping to get across. In a more general sense, I don't wholesale dispute objectivity, only our ability to interpret it without context.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SumGai10 @ToKTeacher and
I'm an optimistic non-relativist, morally speaking. I guess there are universally shared human values that are sufficient to solve these problems.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @DoqxaScott @SumGai10 and
How do we get there? We've already come a long way, yet we have a long way to go. And I suspect this will always be the case. When we solve one problem, more are revealed.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DoqxaScott @ToKTeacher and
It might be the case that morality is something that's negotiated, not discovered.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SumGai10 @DoqxaScott and
Yes. That’s the prevailing zeitgeist: a form of relativism. It’s a matter of *consensus* (negotiation). Many think the only alternative is religious dogmatism. Others think there can be a scientific *foundation*. I disagree with all those views:https://youtu.be/5kPSI6djlwE
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ToKTeacher @SumGai10 and
(There I explain two forms of rational objective morality. The foundational/scientific/consequentialist kind favoured by Harris and the non-foundational problem-focussed Popperian view articulated by Deutsch. I contrast both with religious dogmatism and relativism).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ToKTeacher @SumGai10 and
1/2: FWIW there are no contradictions in reality. So “conflicting values” isn’t a thing. It’s merely the case that what *one thinks they should value* is wrong. If we all learned to value the correct things, there’d be no conflict.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ToKTeacher @SumGai10 and
2/2: That this doesn’t happen no more undermines the fact objective morality exists than does the fact there isn’t perfect consensus on matters of science. Science isn’t a *negotiation* between scientists. 99% of scientists can disagree. 1% can be correct. So too morality.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Dudes please untag me
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.