(July 7, 2024 at 7:11 am)Angrboda Wrote: As an anti-realist, one could behave morally, but why would one want to do so?

Why would one not want to? We have evolutionarily guides desires and wants that are moral in nature so we tend to follow those. Also, we do an awful lot of things despite there being no objective standard or goal behind the actions. The claim (not sure if you are implying it through your statement) that we wouldn’t want to act a certain way without an objective standard I think credits us with being too rational, that we analyse our actions and only proceed if certain criteria are met

(July 7, 2024 at 7:29 am)Lucian Wrote:

(July 7, 2024 at 7:11 am)Angrboda Wrote: As an anti-realist, one could behave morally, but why would one want to do so?

Why would one not want to? We have evolutionarily guides desires and wants that are moral in nature so we tend to follow those. Also, we do an awful lot of things despite there being no objective standard or goal behind the actions. The claim (not sure if you are implying it through your statement) that we wouldn’t want to act a certain way without an objective standard I think credits us with being too rational, that we analyse our actions and only proceed if certain criteria are met

There are plenty of incentives for behaving immorally. That's why.

(July 7, 2024 at 7:39 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(July 7, 2024 at 7:29 am)Lucian Wrote: Why would one not want to? We have evolutionarily guides desires and wants that are moral in nature so we tend to follow those. Also, we do an awful lot of things despite there being no objective standard or goal behind the actions. The claim (not sure if you are implying it through your statement) that we wouldn’t want to act a certain way without an objective standard I think credits us with being too rational, that we analyse our actions and only proceed if certain criteria are met

There are plenty of incentives for behaving immorally.  That's why.

Yep, agreed on that. But there are also plenty of incentives to not. Just because there are incentives doesn’t mean we will choose them. Sure, we could; and probably will in some situations, but the absence of a belief in an objective standard isn’t what does that. I have yet to go on a theft spree since becoming an anti-realist and can’t see it happening. If I were clever I would get away with it, still don’t see it happening, because I don’t want to not because there is some objective standard saying I should not

(July 7, 2024 at 7:42 am)Lucian Wrote:

(July 7, 2024 at 7:39 am)Angrboda Wrote: There are plenty of incentives for behaving immorally.  That's why.

Yep, agreed on that. But there are also plenty of incentives to not. Just because there are incentives doesn’t mean we will choose them. Sure, we could; and probably will in some situations, but the absence of a belief in an objective standard isn’t what does that. I have yet to go on a theft spree since becoming an anti-realist and can’t see it happening. If I were clever I would get away with it, still don’t see it happening, because I don’t want to not because there is some objective standard saying I should not

I wasn't arguing that we necessarily would behave immorally, only that the reasons not to do so become purely utilitarian, in which case, behaving immorally is often the better choice.

(July 7, 2024 at 8:16 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(July 7, 2024 at 7:42 am)Lucian Wrote: Yep, agreed on that. But there are also plenty of incentives to not. Just because there are incentives doesn’t mean we will choose them. Sure, we could; and probably will in some situations, but the absence of a belief in an objective standard isn’t what does that. I have yet to go on a theft spree since becoming an anti-realist and can’t see it happening. If I were clever I would get away with it, still don’t see it happening, because I don’t want to not because there is some objective standard saying I should not

I wasn't arguing that we necessarily would behave immorally, only that the reasons not to do so become purely utilitarian, in which case, behaving immorally is often the better choice.

Thanks for the clarification, that is useful
Even people who believe in objective morality can see behaving morally as the better choice depending on their preferences. Just get past that pesky conscience and you are away; or just live with a little bit of guilt until it is forgotten

(July 7, 2024 at 8:28 am)Lucian Wrote:

(July 7, 2024 at 8:16 am)Angrboda Wrote: I wasn't arguing that we necessarily would behave immorally, only that the reasons not to do so become purely utilitarian, in which case, behaving immorally is often the better choice.

Thanks for the clarification, that is useful
Even people who believe in objective morality can see behaving morally as the better choice depending on their preferences. Just get past that pesky conscience and you are away; or just live with a little bit of guilt until it is forgotten

Are you suggesting that people assess choices with moral implications based on utility rather than right and wrong? That doesn't seem sensible. Even if they take into account utility, they still have a reason to behave morally, even if they don't do so. The other does not which leads to purely situational ethics. (ETA: Btw, could come to the same conclusion and would come to the same conclusion are distinctly different thresholds.)

(July 7, 2024 at 9:41 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(July 7, 2024 at 8:28 am)Lucian Wrote: Thanks for the clarification, that is useful
Even people who believe in objective morality can see behaving morally as the better choice depending on their preferences. Just get past that pesky conscience and you are away; or just live with a little bit of guilt until it is forgotten

Are you suggesting that people assess choices with moral implications based on utility rather than right and wrong?  That doesn't seem sensible.  Even if they take into account utility, they still have a reason to behave morally, even if they don't do so.  The other does not which leads to purely situational ethics.

No, but I am arguing that sometimes utility will win out when facing a hard decision or strong emotional inclinations. It is possible to think something is wrong and still do it, in fact I think it is common on some of the “smaller” things
I just don’t believe people think through consciously why they do a lot of things, they just do them

Re situational ethics - are you saying that that is what the anti-realist has?

(July 7, 2024 at 9:44 am)Lucian Wrote:

(July 7, 2024 at 9:41 am)Angrboda Wrote: Are you suggesting that people assess choices with moral implications based on utility rather than right and wrong?  That doesn't seem sensible.  Even if they take into account utility, they still have a reason to behave morally, even if they don't do so.  The other does not which leads to purely situational ethics.

No, but I am arguing that sometimes utility will win out when facing a hard decision or strong emotional inclinations. It is possible to think something is wrong and still do it, in fact I think it is common on some of the “smaller” things
I just don’t believe people think through consciously why they do a lot of things, they just do them

Re situational ethics - are you saying that that is what the anti-realist has?

That's a semantic question. From a practical standpoint, an anti-realist makes choices which have a moral dimension situationally. I don't think it matters whether that dimension is real or not.

(July 7, 2024 at 9:46 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(July 7, 2024 at 9:44 am)Lucian Wrote: No, but I am arguing that sometimes utility will win out when facing a hard decision or strong emotional inclinations. It is possible to think something is wrong and still do it, in fact I think it is common on some of the “smaller” things
I just don’t believe people think through consciously why they do a lot of things, they just do them

Re situational ethics - are you saying that that is what the anti-realist has?

That's a semantic question.  From a practical standpoint, an anti-realist makes choices which have a moral dimension situationally.  I don't think it matters whether that dimension is real or not.

Possibly, I haven’t really read anything on normative ethics so am thoroughly ignorant on that side. It is the metaethics that interest me at the moment.

(July 7, 2024 at 9:46 am)Angrboda Wrote: That's a semantic question.  From a practical standpoint, an anti-realist makes choices which have a moral dimension situationally.  I don't think it matters whether that dimension is real or not.

Out of interest, is the question of why an anti-realist would act morally just one of curiosity, or does it lean towards evidence against anti-realism for you?