Don Loeb is awesome. Everyone should check out his papers on moral incoherentism and gastronomic realism. Here are the references for those papers: Loeb, D. (2003). Gastronomic realism-A cautionary tale. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 23(1), 30-49. Loeb, D. (2008). Moral incoherentism: How to pull a metaphysical rabbit out of a semantic hat. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology: The cognitive science of morality (Vol. 2, pp. 355-386). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
@@appalachianmountain, respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
@@pinecone421, Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
all the arguments he used to argue against moral realism can be used to argue against realism about validity. with minor modification they can be used to argue for antirealism in science
Do you have any pointers for realism about validity? I learned that validity is a primitive concept that brutely classifies propositional forms in a logic. I'm not sure what realism/antirealism would mean in regard to that.
@@DaKoopaKingHe’s just saying the argument loeb uses against morality would apply similarly to logic, so if you want to rule out moral facts by means of this argument you would also have to rule out logical facts by means of this argument.
Lol, even a staunch anti-realist gives you quite a lot of pushback for your claim that you don't understand what realists are talking about, I wonder why... Truly hilarious.
"A whole generation of undergraduates was excited to find that all they needed to do if they wanted to refute some inconvenient doctrine was to say loudly and firmly 'I simply don't understand that' or 'But what could that possibly mean?' and the opposition would have to wither away. Not understanding things became the unanswerable one-up default position " - Mary Midgely
@@adamkennedy3800 That's not what he's actually saying at all. Rather, he believes that moral realists don't understand their position either - this isn't a sign of humility but of exceptional arrogance
@@dominiks5068 I'm also in the nonnatural moral realism is unintelligible camp. Even if I became a nonnatural moral realist, I don't think I would know how to produce true moral statements. I've never had a phenomenological experience of categorical reasons, and in principle there seems to be no way to differentiate between true and false categorical reasons because they are apparently nonnatural so I don't know how to observe any of their truthmaking properties. I noticed that I have the same problem with deontology in normative ethics. Even if I became a deontologist overnight, I would still be in the dark about what it means for morality to be in accordance with the natural law or which actions are universalizable (if everyone became a construction worker society would be wiped out because no one would be a farmer, but presumably deontology shouldn't imply that being a construction worker is immoral) or which rights we have and don't have. The best I can do is a rule utilitarian approximation of all these things, where the reason we follow a moral rule is because it maximizes utility compared to having random people attempting cost-benefit-analyses with incomplete information. In general I'm not sure how I would come into contact with moral rules independent of people's desires, goals, interests, outside of arbitrarily stipulating them.
Yay, finally another don Loeb video
This channel needs more subscribers and views wtf
Don Loeb is awesome. Everyone should check out his papers on moral incoherentism and gastronomic realism.
Here are the references for those papers:
Loeb, D. (2003). Gastronomic realism-A cautionary tale. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 23(1), 30-49.
Loeb, D. (2008). Moral incoherentism: How to pull a metaphysical rabbit out of a semantic hat. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology: The cognitive science of morality (Vol. 2, pp. 355-386). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
@@appalachianmountain, respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
This was a phenomenal interview! Thanks so much for this.
Phenomenally conservative* lol
@@pinecone421, Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
Shmoral shmealism
That was interesting, thanks for the good content.
all the arguments he used to argue against moral realism can be used to argue against realism about validity. with minor modification they can be used to argue for antirealism in science
Do you have any pointers for realism about validity? I learned that validity is a primitive concept that brutely classifies propositional forms in a logic. I'm not sure what realism/antirealism would mean in regard to that.
@@DaKoopaKingHe’s just saying the argument loeb uses against morality would apply similarly to logic, so if you want to rule out moral facts by means of this argument you would also have to rule out logical facts by means of this argument.
Luckily anti-realism about logic and science is also true
His Gastronomic Realism paper is a masterpiece. Detroyer gets all the for realsies philosophers up on his channel.
I thought it said mathematics as in Eₖ=½mv² LOL
A tour de force in how one can say "morality doesn't exist" in three hundred and seventy five different ways...
Lol, even a staunch anti-realist gives you quite a lot of pushback for your claim that you don't understand what realists are talking about, I wonder why... Truly hilarious.
Detroyer just being honest. He has reflected alot and thinks he is missing something. Props to him for admitting it.
"A whole generation of undergraduates was excited to find that all they needed to do if they wanted to refute some inconvenient doctrine was to say loudly and firmly 'I simply don't understand that' or 'But what could that possibly mean?' and the opposition would have to wither away. Not understanding things became the unanswerable one-up default position " - Mary Midgely
@@adamkennedy3800 That's not what he's actually saying at all. Rather, he believes that moral realists don't understand their position either - this isn't a sign of humility but of exceptional arrogance
@@dominiks5068 I'm also in the nonnatural moral realism is unintelligible camp. Even if I became a nonnatural moral realist, I don't think I would know how to produce true moral statements. I've never had a phenomenological experience of categorical reasons, and in principle there seems to be no way to differentiate between true and false categorical reasons because they are apparently nonnatural so I don't know how to observe any of their truthmaking properties.
I noticed that I have the same problem with deontology in normative ethics. Even if I became a deontologist overnight, I would still be in the dark about what it means for morality to be in accordance with the natural law or which actions are universalizable (if everyone became a construction worker society would be wiped out because no one would be a farmer, but presumably deontology shouldn't imply that being a construction worker is immoral) or which rights we have and don't have. The best I can do is a rule utilitarian approximation of all these things, where the reason we follow a moral rule is because it maximizes utility compared to having random people attempting cost-benefit-analyses with incomplete information.
In general I'm not sure how I would come into contact with moral rules independent of people's desires, goals, interests, outside of arbitrarily stipulating them.
@@adamkennedy3800 It's also possible he's not missing anything because there isn't anything to miss.