tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post597046839791011645..comments2023-01-24T10:06:57.212-08:00Comments on (Blog&~Blog): A Quick Thought About Meta-EthicsBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06702722560438833244noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-856887134519817022010-07-12T19:38:16.685-07:002010-07-12T19:38:16.685-07:00Actually, I don't think the language of diseas...Actually, I don't think the language of disease/malfunction is essential to the point. The point is just that it alters its functioning from the genetic norm, and that that should be sufficient to make the point. If one privileges the deep intuitions resulting from genetics, or the ones that gave rise to the rigidificiation of moral language at some point in the past, the (to me quite counter-intuitive) result is that the discovery of the mysterious substance should generate an admission that we're currently morally mistaken. If one doesn't privilege those deep intuitions over those with other causal backstories, then it's hard to see how relativism can be dodged.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702722560438833244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-15957071560715915052010-07-09T18:09:32.842-07:002010-07-09T18:09:32.842-07:00Ben,
"Is there some reason why changes in dee...Ben,<br />"Is there some reason why changes in deep intuitions resulting from the contamination of the water supply get to amount to a shift in the reference of moral terms, while changes in deep intuitions resulting from purely cultural factors don't?"<br /><br />No. Obviously you're right in this.<br /><br />Still, there's something that bothers me about your story, such that I don't think present-day moralizers should change their minds about what 'moral' means. Perhaps it's this instead: <br />Your story describes the MS (mystery substance) as causing brain <i>disease</i>, where, since it alters only moral intuitions, we come to assume that it causes the moral engine's <i>malfunction</i>. Since our present-day sympathetic intuitions are the result of malfunction, they're obviously inaccurate, and so the moral judgments based on them are also inaccurate. <br />Fine - that all works if you're allowed to assume that the changes MS cause amount to disease, and it's your story. But presumably the point of this story is to show that we may find ourselves in the situation you describe, and in this situation we would not give up our moral intuitions, contrary to Naturalistic Moral Realism. This I doubt: We could certainly find out that MS existed, that it had effects on the brain and so moral intuitions, and that it had been slowly and inexorably guiding the moral zeitgeist for the last 2000 years. But what would not be given to us by these physical facts is the classification of its effects as causing <i>disease</i>. To license that we would have to establish harm and/or malfunction, but obviously, if we think present-day moral intuitions are correct, then we are not likely to think MS does result in harm or malfunction, any more than proper nutrition does.<br />To sum up: I agree that the truth of your story would require us to give up modern morality, but I disagree that a naturalistic moral realist should worry about that, since your story contains a value judgment with which she would not agree (which you as much as admit by presenting the story as problematic for her), and would not make were the physical details of your story to obtain.<br /><br />"I might actually follow up on that next week."<br /> <br />Cool - I'm intrigued by it.TaiChihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130016615104653729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-89505560070091086392010-07-08T22:11:09.047-07:002010-07-08T22:11:09.047-07:00Excellent. Killing children is wonderful; we stude...Excellent. Killing children is wonderful; we students love it. <br /><br />It's almost as wonderful as "So you're walking down the street and you see a baby drowning in a shallow pool..." in the context of some utilitarian dilemma.Albedohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17309956740726766475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-23751282279562065722010-07-08T20:30:22.550-07:002010-07-08T20:30:22.550-07:00Good point. My bad, for being lazy and using stock...Good point. My bad, for being lazy and using stock examples.<br /><br />How about if we switched it to something like:<br /><br />"Killing children for sport is wrong."<br /><br />?Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702722560438833244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-6147108780107986632010-07-08T16:15:14.731-07:002010-07-08T16:15:14.731-07:00May I propose a 5th option?
(5) Bob is Bob.
To ...May I propose a 5th option? <br /><br />(5) Bob is Bob.<br /><br />To say murder is wrong is tautological. Murder, by definition, is wrongful death. To suggest it's anything else is contrary to the definition of murder. This is not object as the word itself has been constructed by man and society. But to ask if "Murder is wrong" would be like asking "Does a thief steal?" It's not objective beyond the fact that we define "thief" as "one who steals". <br /><br />Bob is 6'5", to the extent that Bob existence is defined by his being 6'5", would then have to be my answer. Not that Bob coudn't be any other height, but rather this is how we've come to understand Bob.<br /><br />I feel the exercise is problematic. I understand the purpose, but I feel using the word "Murder" complicates the issue. <br /><br />The rest is lovely :)Albedohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17309956740726766475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-86389521519039575052010-07-07T17:21:02.860-07:002010-07-07T17:21:02.860-07:00TaiChi,
"The intuitive answer, I've been...TaiChi,<br /><br />"The intuitive answer, I've been informed...."<br /><br />Right. As always, I'm in awe of some people's powers of intuition. I feel no strong pull toward either position on the transportation to twin earth issue. Interesting analogy, though.<br /><br />"And I think this is clearly the right response to your story: what humans used to mean by 'moral' then just isn't the same as what we mean by 'moral' now...."<br /><br />...which sounds a great deal like a kind of (hypothetical) temporal relativism to me. Think of it this way...if we allow that answer to the temporal-shift thought experiment, then what should we say about cases where people's deep moral intuitions have been "corrupted" by a certain sort of cultural training? Is there some reason why changes in deep intuitions resulting from the contamination of the water supply get to amount to a shift in the reference of moral terms, while changes in deep intuitions resulting from purely cultural factors don't?<br /><br />Of course, some of this gets down to what one takes the sometimes very slippery term "relativism" to amount to, but if it turns out that sometimes people with cultural training X and people with cultural training Y disagree not because anyone's making a mistake but because X-right and X-wrong are simply different creatures from Y-right and Y-wrong.....<br /><br />....that sounds pretty relativistic.<br /><br />"(By the way, are you still planning to follow up on Restall's Moral Fictionism?)"<br /><br />....absolutely, yeah. I got distracted by other things, and it got delayed, but I think I've gotten my thoughts together a bit more now. I might actually follow up on that next week.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702722560438833244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-10174460718391263582010-07-06T01:30:25.697-07:002010-07-06T01:30:25.697-07:00Hi Ben. Love your blog.
This seems to resemble a ...Hi Ben. Love your blog.<br /><br />This seems to resemble a slow-switching scenario from the twin-earth literature. So, for example, Paul Boghossian sketches a story wherein a inhabitant of Earth is transported without his knowledge to twin-earth, where his life continues as normal. The question is: when this person forms beliefs or thoughts about e.g. the contents of a lake, are we to ascribe that person a belief in H2O (as found on Earth), or about XYZ (found on twin-earth? The intuitive answer, I've been informed, is that before and immediately after the switch the switchee refers to H20, but after some substantial period of time the thoughts and beliefs come to refer to XYZ instead, where new causal connections come to 'overmaster' the old ones. <br />You're probably aware of all that, but I mention it because it shows that imperceptible changes in the conditions in which we refer may, despite our not knowing it, also change the reference of our terms. So the mere fact that you've told a story in which the change goes unnoticed shouldn't dissuade us from saying that the reference of our moral terms has actually changed. And I think this is clearly the right response to your story: what humans used to mean by 'moral' then just isn't the same as what we mean by 'moral' now.<br /><br />(By the way, are you still planning to follow up on Restall's Moral Fictionism? )TaiChihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05130016615104653729noreply@blogger.com