I think it’d better for everyone if we were all relativists and chose the best options at all times but I do think there are certain moral imperatives even if we haven’t yet conceived of them
That wasn’t a metaethical claim. Literally read section 1 of the Wikipedia article
ps hbotz, i understand wanting common ground, but i have to think your unmoving position on needing things spelled out for you at every moment demonstrates bad faith communion. do more work than dumping one approach to an engagement.
this is the biggest hedge ive ever seen youre mafia
:) I know
1 Like
You looked at the wiki article and didn't even to the first section titled "definitions and etymology"
Basically I’m a relativist but if we ever developed enough to come up with a moral imperative that either created the most good possible or the worst evil possible I’d be open to switching
It's not a fucking niche definition. It's the most accepted definition in sociology, philosophy, feminism, and cultural anthropology
@hbotz What's your educational background with respect to science, math, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mathematics? Not just formal, but self-education as well. And what form did the self-education take?
If you have no formal or informal education on these things, why do you speak so authoritatively on this?
There are different levels of real
Take the blue black yellow white dress
It was real that people saw either color or both at different times
It is the case that the dress was only one of the pairings
i mean, there are people with sensory impairments...
there are two different things: the physical color of the dress and the perception of people of the color of the dress when viewing the picture.
the perception is as real as any perceptions are. the dress is a real color. the perception is not necessarily accurate.
usually people's visual perceptions are mostly in consensus but this particular photo is apparently interacts with people in a strange way such that it produced a large disparity in the perception.
i think you just consider the question answered and continue with your following question/reasoning
("If you have no formal or informal education on these things, why do you speak so authoritatively on this?")
There is no question that people, depending on their abilities or whatever, perceived it differently.
But does me seeing it one way and another person seeing it another change what it is in the world?
The Mcgurk effect is another cool psych 101 dinger
What's your educational background with respect to science, math, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mathematics? Not just formal, but self-education as well. And what form did the self-education take?
also @LuckyArtist okay yes i can see that metaethics looks for better goods and worse evils. is there a simple illustrative example to motivate why better goods and worse evils might exist?
Meta ethics doesn’t look for those it asks why we look for those and what it means to be better or worse in a moral context
1 Like
Normative ethics looks for those things
the dress is a dress. the picture is a picture. the picture is the thing being perceived differently by different people in a surprising way.