I always find it hard to agree with Huemer's view on moral intuitions. You brought up the example of the view on homosexuality in the past and while I agree, that there seems to be nothing wrong with homosexuality, I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that I grew up in a liberal society. If I were born 200 years earlier, it pains me to say, that there seems to be a high chance I would have myself been homophobic and I wonder if Huemer would have been different. I don't say that to insult his moral character, I just think that our upbringing plays a huge role. There were many people in the past who were philosophers, who were smart and who in their own way were very moral, who would have said that homosexuality is an evil or a sin.
You also would have likely believed that the Earth is flat if you were born 5000 years ago. You'd also likely be a Hindu if you were born in India. You'd likely be a Muslim if you were born in Saudi Arabia. The fact that your beliefs are largely influenced by the society you're born in has zero bearing on whether the belief is false. Your argument to moral objectivism is the Argument from Disagreement, which has been thoroughly refuted in the academic literature. Now, of course, you might respond to what I said above by saying: "But there is a fact to the matter as to what the shape of the Earth is, or as to whether God exists. But there's no fact to the matter regarding ethical claims". But notice two problems with this response. First, in the original post you state (or at least imply), that the reason you think moral values do not exist is because they're heavily influenced by the culture you're raised in. But this response completely abandons such reasoning since it amounts to conceding that the influence of culture on beliefs has zero bearing on whether your beliefs are objectively true. Second, this response amounts to a circular argument. Essentially, it says 'Moral values do not exist because moral values do not exist'. But you need reason to support this view, you can't just assume it.
@@superstartop6763 I'm a moral anti-realist but my post was just aimed at moral intuitions, not at moral realism as a whole. Huemer starts from intuitions and I doubt that they are as reliable as he thinks.
@@MsJavaWolf Michael Huemer would not pick 'homosexuality is morally permissible' as the strongest ethical intuition. He knows that different cultures have varying views on the matter and for this reason it is not self-evident that homosexuality is morally permissible. You seem to be misunderstanding ethical intuitionism. Ethical intuitionists do NOT think we can easily and know all moral facts as though they were self-evident. Rather, ethical intuitionists think SOME moral facts are self-evident requiring no further justification. For e.g., something like 'In general, it is unjust to punish someone for a crime they did not commit' would count as self-evident. The moral intuitionist, would argue that none of the antirealist arguments are convincing enough to the extent that we should abandon the belief that it's 'in general, it is unjust to punish someone for a crime they did not commit'. If you disagree, try filling in your best argument for moral antirealism: P1: ??? P2: ??? Conclusion: It is NOT the case that it's generally unjust to punish a person for a crime they did not commit. And then we'd ask, is the conjunction of P1+P2 more plausible than 'it is unjust to punish a person for a crime they did not commit'? Doubtful, says the ethical intuitionist. Therefore, the moral antirealist arguments are too implausible.
@@superstartop6763 Thanks for the replies. I wasn't really trying to start a discussion about meta ethics (although my post might look like that and I appreciate the input). Since this video was more about applied ethics and politics I was wondering more how all of this would work in practice. There are some moral intuitions, like that murder is wrong, which seem obvious to most people, but then most people will already have those beliefs anyway, so reminding them of those moral rules won't change much. It seems that the moral rules that still have room for improvement are often those that people disagree with, or even those where most people used to have a view that was very different from what we believe today. If we have a society, where pretty much everyone thinks homosexuality is horrible, how do get to a more tolerant society? Since everyone has the same (potentially wrong) intuitions, there seems to be no mechanism to get out of that thinking.
I always find it hard to agree with Huemer's view on moral intuitions. You brought up the example of the view on homosexuality in the past and while I agree, that there seems to be nothing wrong with homosexuality, I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that I grew up in a liberal society. If I were born 200 years earlier, it pains me to say, that there seems to be a high chance I would have myself been homophobic and I wonder if Huemer would have been different. I don't say that to insult his moral character, I just think that our upbringing plays a huge role. There were many people in the past who were philosophers, who were smart and who in their own way were very moral, who would have said that homosexuality is an evil or a sin.
You also would have likely believed that the Earth is flat if you were born 5000 years ago. You'd also likely be a Hindu if you were born in India. You'd likely be a Muslim if you were born in Saudi Arabia. The fact that your beliefs are largely influenced by the society you're born in has zero bearing on whether the belief is false. Your argument to moral objectivism is the Argument from Disagreement, which has been thoroughly refuted in the academic literature.
Now, of course, you might respond to what I said above by saying: "But there is a fact to the matter as to what the shape of the Earth is, or as to whether God exists. But there's no fact to the matter regarding ethical claims". But notice two problems with this response. First, in the original post you state (or at least imply), that the reason you think moral values do not exist is because they're heavily influenced by the culture you're raised in. But this response completely abandons such reasoning since it amounts to conceding that the influence of culture on beliefs has zero bearing on whether your beliefs are objectively true. Second, this response amounts to a circular argument. Essentially, it says 'Moral values do not exist because moral values do not exist'. But you need reason to support this view, you can't just assume it.
@@superstartop6763 I'm a moral anti-realist but my post was just aimed at moral intuitions, not at moral realism as a whole.
Huemer starts from intuitions and I doubt that they are as reliable as he thinks.
@@MsJavaWolf Michael Huemer would not pick 'homosexuality is morally permissible' as the strongest ethical intuition. He knows that different cultures have varying views on the matter and for this reason it is not self-evident that homosexuality is morally permissible. You seem to be misunderstanding ethical intuitionism. Ethical intuitionists do NOT think we can easily and know all moral facts as though they were self-evident. Rather, ethical intuitionists think SOME moral facts are self-evident requiring no further justification. For e.g., something like 'In general, it is unjust to punish someone for a crime they did not commit' would count as self-evident. The moral intuitionist, would argue that none of the antirealist arguments are convincing enough to the extent that we should abandon the belief that it's 'in general, it is unjust to punish someone for a crime they did not commit'. If you disagree, try filling in your best argument for moral antirealism:
P1: ???
P2: ???
Conclusion: It is NOT the case that it's generally unjust to punish a person for a crime they did not commit.
And then we'd ask, is the conjunction of P1+P2 more plausible than 'it is unjust to punish a person for a crime they did not commit'? Doubtful, says the ethical intuitionist. Therefore, the moral antirealist arguments are too implausible.
@@superstartop6763 Thanks for the replies. I wasn't really trying to start a discussion about meta ethics (although my post might look like that and I appreciate the input). Since this video was more about applied ethics and politics I was wondering more how all of this would work in practice.
There are some moral intuitions, like that murder is wrong, which seem obvious to most people, but then most people will already have those beliefs anyway, so reminding them of those moral rules won't change much.
It seems that the moral rules that still have room for improvement are often those that people disagree with, or even those where most people used to have a view that was very different from what we believe today. If we have a society, where pretty much everyone thinks homosexuality is horrible, how do get to a more tolerant society? Since everyone has the same (potentially wrong) intuitions, there seems to be no mechanism to get out of that thinking.
Highly disagree, what would the intuition be ''homosexuality is in itself immoral even though it causes no harm''?