(September 28, 2018 at 10:52 pm)robvalue Wrote: Lol, I very much look forward to your thoughts on it!
I'm extremely confused by moral realism as a concept in the first place. As far as I can see, you can only formulate an ethical statement to be a fact once you've picked a framework to evaluate outcomes (as Khem was saying regarding the is/ought problem). Once you've done this, surely the truth of those statements is based on your own framework, and hence only applicable to you? And any person could pick any framework they like.
The second thing that confuses me is how wellbeing is defined. This is such a hugely vague concept that trying to evaluate it, even after deciding on using it as a framework, seems to be impossible if you're coming up with anything nuanced. Of course, we can make very simple statements that I'd be willing to concede as facts for the sake of argument such as, "It's unethical to punch someone for no reason". But all you're really saying is that punching people is bad for their wellbeing.
PS: maybe I'm misunderstanding, but moral realism appears to be suggesting there is a "correct" framework to pick. If so, I see this as a circular statement.
I would agree with you 100%. Harris uses a particular form of argument by baby-step. He insists there are some moral positions we would ALL agree on-- that it's better to praise someone than to burn them in an oven, or something.
What he's really doing is finding states so agreeable to all or so reprehensible to all that nobody in a particular audience would be willing to disagree. It's unlikely that in an academic lecture someone will stand up and shout "No. . . burning babies is fucking great!"
