Note also that utilitarianism as formulated here also can’t answer “what is suffering/what is good” consistently. Applied as politics, it is “good” to provide for state-protection to the exercise of religious practice to prevent state or social repression. But it is not good to permit that protection to allow that religious population to be bigoted and repressive. Unless you’re John Roberts, that is. Religious practice can provide people with emotional solace from suffering, but can also immeasurably increase that suffering. Ambivalence is a problem for utilitarian formulations.
If I may just say, the "according to whom" objection is specious insofar as one believes that rules or duties need anyone's pronouncement or say-so to be valid. It's like assuming that 2+2=4 needs a mathgiver, as it were. Begs the question. But I'm speaking moreso on the matter of metaethics and secular realism than anything in per se normative ethics.
Interesting article. Glad you decided to look beyond systematic silos. I take a non-systematic view as well, like many moral realists. Mine is something like domain-specified syncretism. (Which is a whole other kettle of fish I won't unpack too much unless asked directly.)
Thanks! Re: "according to whom" I feel like if there's no agent than it's just arbitrary. The 2+2=4 example only makes sense if you believe math is discovered rather than human-created, which would make it just as arbitrary as moral laws. I'm not sure whether I believe math was created or discovered, but so long as it being created is a possibility I think the "according to whom/what" still applies
Again, this is question begging and therefore circular. Not to encourage/spark any sort of metaethics debate (which I truly, absolutely, do not want), but one need only engage with the Euthyphro dilemma to understand what "arbitrary" actually means in this context. Objectivity aligns with discovery, not with dictates.
And to really put a bow on things, the possibility that the math itself was created rather than discovered, whilst technically an open question, seems poised to be trivially resolved by a careful observation of reality, rationality, and other species. Math, or at least basic arithmetic, is not unique to humans. Other animals count things. Some even do rudimentary geometry. It seems obvious that what grounds math is rational necessary. It exists because it must, and does so in all possible worlds.
Saying morality doesn't and cannot work likewise invites a charge of special pleading. One no anti-realist has ever, to knowledge, resolved except to claim subjectivism reigns across most/all domains of knowledge. A claim which, if we're intellectually honest and consistent, sounds pants on head witless tbh.
Ive been stuck in my head about this exact paradox all week -- nice to stumble on your piece and feel less alone and somewhat connected. Thanks.
Note also that utilitarianism as formulated here also can’t answer “what is suffering/what is good” consistently. Applied as politics, it is “good” to provide for state-protection to the exercise of religious practice to prevent state or social repression. But it is not good to permit that protection to allow that religious population to be bigoted and repressive. Unless you’re John Roberts, that is. Religious practice can provide people with emotional solace from suffering, but can also immeasurably increase that suffering. Ambivalence is a problem for utilitarian formulations.
If I may just say, the "according to whom" objection is specious insofar as one believes that rules or duties need anyone's pronouncement or say-so to be valid. It's like assuming that 2+2=4 needs a mathgiver, as it were. Begs the question. But I'm speaking moreso on the matter of metaethics and secular realism than anything in per se normative ethics.
Interesting article. Glad you decided to look beyond systematic silos. I take a non-systematic view as well, like many moral realists. Mine is something like domain-specified syncretism. (Which is a whole other kettle of fish I won't unpack too much unless asked directly.)
Thx for sharing.
Thanks! Re: "according to whom" I feel like if there's no agent than it's just arbitrary. The 2+2=4 example only makes sense if you believe math is discovered rather than human-created, which would make it just as arbitrary as moral laws. I'm not sure whether I believe math was created or discovered, but so long as it being created is a possibility I think the "according to whom/what" still applies
Again, this is question begging and therefore circular. Not to encourage/spark any sort of metaethics debate (which I truly, absolutely, do not want), but one need only engage with the Euthyphro dilemma to understand what "arbitrary" actually means in this context. Objectivity aligns with discovery, not with dictates.
And to really put a bow on things, the possibility that the math itself was created rather than discovered, whilst technically an open question, seems poised to be trivially resolved by a careful observation of reality, rationality, and other species. Math, or at least basic arithmetic, is not unique to humans. Other animals count things. Some even do rudimentary geometry. It seems obvious that what grounds math is rational necessary. It exists because it must, and does so in all possible worlds.
Saying morality doesn't and cannot work likewise invites a charge of special pleading. One no anti-realist has ever, to knowledge, resolved except to claim subjectivism reigns across most/all domains of knowledge. A claim which, if we're intellectually honest and consistent, sounds pants on head witless tbh.
Cheers. ✌🏿👋🏿