Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
@JoWehler Because colours aren't the electromagnetic waves. 'Redness' seems to be uniquely an experience rather than a wavelength of light. You would have to depart from direct realism
Right but this has the issue that the lens in our eyes is part of the perception which gives us the foundation of our knowledge. You could say that a microscope gives an extra level of indirectness which would make the bacteria an unobservable
I don't even believe in instrumental oughts, although they could be taken non-literally and it might still work? But regardless, how do you even privilege one moral system over another in that situation? It would require another subjective evaluation to say that something being agreed with more makes it more favourable. It seems to end up just being purely subjective preferences, which I definitely wouldn't use moral language to describe
Pretty much, yeah. I guess I would say I do just have preferences. I don't think there are any desire-independent reasons for action. Why do you believe there are any true moral claims in the first place?
Thank you for the comprehensive answer. As for your last point, I personally no longer have a moral system as I believe in error theory, but I think I used to have a pretty good case for a sort of propertarian deontology. It was a bit different from anarcho-capitalist ethics so I avoided terms like NAP, but I do think libertarian ethics are worth looking into more if you haven't so far.
First, you're misusing the term subjectivism. That refers to the theory that moral claims are truth-apt descriptions of attitudes, like 'I don't like murder' rather than expressions, which is what 'boo to stealing' is. What you're describing is more a form of expressivism/noncognitivism. Secondly, I don't understand why that relation is problematic? If moral claims are expressions of noncognitive attitudes, it would make a lot of sense for there to be no rationality involved in abiding by them.
@NikosM. Well because that appearance is only due to the fact that we have learned to associate certain things with depth cues. In the 70s, some anthropologists found that a zulu tribe saw the horizontal lines as the same length. The mis-perceiving seems to be purely due to our experience rather than out in the world. I don't think it's cultural conditioning which makes us see refraction
