The D&D Great Wheel of the Planes and Moral Ethical Relativism

[Cheiromancer]

True, the word "meter" might mean different things, but the concept we refer to when we say "meter" in this world remains the same.

No, I mean that "this piece of metal is one metre long" is an a priori, contingent truth. When applied to one particular piece of metal, that is: the standard of the metre stored in Paris. But that piece of reference is used to fix the reference; it could have been a different length (if the temperature it is stored at were a little higher or lower, say).

Fundamentally what an objective moral standard must be is a reason that can command every rational being's will, and if the subjectivists can prove that such a reason cannot exist, they have, by denying the possibility of an objective standard, successfully demonstrated that our actually existing moral standards are all subjective.

Shouldn't it be that it ought to command every rational being's will? It would be a little bit bootstrappy, but stranger positions have been entertained.

No, I don't... but I am. My formal training, at least, is very limited.

Awesome.

Yes, but you can't tell me why I should care.

Why should I? All I need to do is to be able to say, truthfully, that on some level you should care. And I think that I can do this by being firmly oriented towards reality. The problem is that the evolutionary games take so long to play out. You can see things much clearer on the micro level, or on very long timescales. Or both. And heck, lets add across possible worlds. Then what survives and reproduces survives and reproduces; all that there is are organisms obedient to the imperative to survive and reproduce. Living things- even non-conscious ones- recognize that existence is good. "Existence is good" - what cleaner way is there of bridging the is-ought gap?

I don't see how rationality could come to be outside of evolution. And so I don't see how it could be completely blind to the fact that existence is good.

It's not the whole story, of course, just the grain of sand inside the pearl. There are all kinds of things that you can call bad, or even evil, even though they exist. Well, I guess it is fairly obvious that there is evil in the world. But if you trace these judgments back through the well-tuned brains of fit organisms, you'll eventually come back to an imperative of genes to respond to the claim that "existence is good" - and they respond by striving to survive and reproduce.

Anyway, I've done enough sidetracking of the thread for one night. I hope its original purpose was more or less finished.

 

[Mardoc Redcloak]

No, I mean that "this piece of metal is one metre long" is an a priori, contingent truth. When applied to one particular piece of metal, that is: the standard of the metre stored in Paris. But that piece of reference is used to fix the reference; it could have been a different length (if the temperature it is stored at were a little higher or lower, say).

In essence what it says is that "this piece of metal has a length of whatever the length of this piece of metal is"... and because "whatever the length of this piece of metal is" is the definition of the length of the meter, that's a truth by definition.

I think. I'm not that familiar with these finer distinctions regarding meaning... see what happens when you're an amateur?

Shouldn't it be that it ought to command every rational being's will? It would be a little bit bootstrappy, but stranger positions have been entertained.

It ought to determine every rational being's will. By "command" I just meant that it must be recognized as obligation--not necessarily actually obeyed.

 

[Cheiromancer]

In essence what it says is that "this piece of metal has a length of whatever the length of this piece of metal is"... and because "whatever the length of this piece of metal is" is the definition of the length of the meter, that's a truth by definition.


I think. I'm not that familiar with these finer distinctions regarding meaning... see what happens when you're an amateur?

Can't resist... one more post...

The piece of metal will have its own length in every possible world. But it won't be a metre long in every possible world. You should pick up Naming and Necessity. It's not too long (and this distinction is very near the front). And it's a classic. I don't usually use Kripke's notion of possible world, but it's hard to talk about analyticity, a prioricity or necessity without being conversant with his distinctions.

It ought to determine every rational being's will. By "command" I just meant that it must be recognized as obligation--not necessarily actually obeyed.

Ought to be recognized as obligation.