Naturalistic realism etc.

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Naturalistic realism etc.

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Sorry for the slow reply.
I saw you started the objective-subjective article. I don't remember if you uploaded those clips of Sisyphus redeemed?
I think there's probably a lot of related content in this thread we can copy over, and maybe some quotes from less wrong.
DrSinger wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:38 am
How so?
Because when we're talking about what is morally good, at first we are talking about qualia/experiences of the mind, like happiness, sadness etc. So we can use our intuition/thoughts to get at what qualia are fundamentally good, then we can talk about what that corresponds to physically.
I don't think we should need to do that. We can look at behavior. This isn't just a black box with no output.

We see that the animal responds to operant conditioning to get/eat the cookie, we can surmise that the animal wants to do that since it has modified its behavior in order to achieve that end; there is clear intent there (we can confirm that with multiple setups, that it wasn't coincidence).

Seems like an open and shut case of determining empirically, without any intuition whatsoever being fundamentally necessary, what something wants, at least to a moral certainty.

Sure we can use "intuition" to approximate what an animal's interests probably are, based on what we think our own would be, but both experimentally and structurally the data is there for objective analysis of most interests we can assess.
There are some interests we can not yet evaluate through objective scientific means, but just as Russell's teapot isn't a subjective matter, neither is this.
DrSinger wrote: Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:38 am if something is delicious then it tastes good (assuming no other factors )
I think that's more of a definition matter, as you said... probably not a good analogy.

Are there any good analogies?

I think it's fair to say something a being is trying to get is something that being wants. That's probably a matter of definition too, but it's linked to empirical facts as I said.
User avatar
DrSinger
Full Member
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Naturalistic realism etc.

Post by DrSinger »

I saw you started the objective-subjective article. I don't remember if you uploaded those clips of Sisyphus redeemed?
I think there's probably a lot of related content in this thread we can copy over, and maybe some quotes from less wrong.
Yeh I was planning on writing it. I uploaded the clips a while ago but haven't put them in the article yet.
Sure we can use "intuition" to approximate what an animal's interests probably are, based on what we think our own would be, but both experimentally and structurally the data is there for objective analysis of most interests we can assess.
There are some interests we can not yet evaluate through objective scientific means, but just as Russell's teapot isn't a subjective matter, neither is this.
I still think we need to appeal to something non empirical to say that fulfilment of interests is good.
Are there any good analogies?
I can't think of any good analogies for what is good. But there are examples of truths that are considered self evident. Presumably the laws of thought are. Some examples given on wikipedia are

I am conscious
A finite whole is greater than, or equal to, any of its parts

I haven't entirely figured out my own metaethical beliefs. I'll have a go at writing the article, if there's anything you disagree with let me know. I completely agree that arguing for veganism from relativism is a problem
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Naturalistic realism etc.

Post by brimstoneSalad »

DrSinger wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:58 pmBut there are examples of truths that are considered self evident. Presumably the laws of thought are. Some examples given on wikipedia are

I am conscious
A finite whole is greater than, or equal to, any of its parts
When you reach that level of assumptions without viable alternatives, that's quite something else.
We have to assume things like the laws of thought and the basics of mathematics not just because it "makes sense" but because there's no other alternative that works. We can do so tentatively if we want, but we can't seriously discard them.

As long as we're only appealing to something on that level (and we do, when we appeal to logical deduction) we don't have a problem.
Science itself is even rooted in a number of necessary metaphysical assumptions.

It's still objective as long as we are forced into them and we aren't arbitrarily choosing from among many mutually incompatible but equally viable options for the foundational assumptions we're using.

DrSinger wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:58 pm I still think we need to appeal to something non empirical to say that fulfilment of interests is good.
I think reason can fit the bill without having to be an arbitrary assertion; we can also look at the teleology of moral discourse (if we're examining the use within anthropology rather than in an argumentative context, that would be very different).
DrSinger wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:58 pm I'll have a go at writing the article, if there's anything you disagree with let me know. I completely agree that arguing for veganism from relativism is a problem
Sounds great! I'll hold off until you flesh out your thoughts, then I'll add to it.
Post Reply