Hi

I run a blog called No Double Standards http://impartialism.blogspot.com and one theme I have have developed recently is a version of desire utilitarianism.Arepo found my site and invited me here, and here I am!

Martin

Hi faithless god. I warmly welcome you to these Felicifia Forums and I hope to learn about your thoughts and beliefs through them.

I have read your piece on the Brights and morality on your double standards blog. While I am only a bright in so far as I have made a few posts on their forum, I feel I should point out that the dispute might simply be a misunderstanding.

They've said that they believe morality is evolved and biologically underpinned. You've countered that morals are a matter of philosophical enquiry, not empirical enquiry. But as far as I'm concerned, both statements are true. That is, moral opinions occur through natural processes which can be empirically studied and moral truth can be obtained through philosophy. I daresay, I don't think the Brights necessarily intended to promote intuitionism, the idea that naturally occuring morals are good morals, or the idea that 'is' equals 'ought'. Unless you reject the brach of psychology which studies the formation of moral opinion, I don't see what the problem is.

I'll say again, I hope you enjoy your time here and I hope we can have some vigorous discussions too!

Hi Ryan I think this is an interesting confusion because my blog has become about arguing for a science of morality and against leaving it in the realms of interminable philosophical debate! Shall I start a thread on this here? I already have two going in different Brights forums!

Hi FG, glad you decided to come along

Ryan and I are both hedonistic utilitarians (but that's coincidence, not a deliberate forum bias), so we'll probably be able to find quite a few things to disagree on. One that I've noticed via Alonzo Fyfe is that while his views seem to preclude noncognitivism, mine are IMO basically compatible with it (and with error theory, come to that) - I do ultimately want to claim that some form of utilitarianism is in some sense (have I hedged enough yet?) more compatible with the physical universe we know than other moral theories, but I want to do so by eliminating the language of morality altogether.

I'm a couple of posts into writing a rhizomic argument for HU in the util forum, so you'll probably find plenty to object to as I go along.

I've also invited Alonzo along, so hopefully you won't feel outnumbered

Arepo wrote:Ryan and I are both hedonistic utilitarians (but that's coincidence, not a deliberate forum bias), so we'll probably be able to find quite a few things to disagree on.

looking forward to it! We might disagree but will also at the same time by all being utilitarians avoid a lot of useless moral philosophical confusions I call "ethics for dummies" - at least I hope so

Arepo wrote:One that I've noticed via Alonzo Fyfe is that while his views seem to preclude noncognitivism, mine are IMO basically compatible with it (and with error theory, come to that) - I do ultimately want to claim that some form of utilitarianism is in some sense (have I hedged enough yet?) more compatible with the physical universe we know than other moral theories, but I want to do so by eliminating the language of morality altogether.

Well cognitivism is key to have a science of morality which is what I aim at as an ethically reductive naturalist and realist. "Moral speak" as I call it is optional and I agree with error theory (which allows for cognitivism) - in that it rejects intrinsic value. But Mackie was only an anti-realist with respect to such value, the second half of his book was an argument for a version of realism - Simon Blackburn misunderstood that entirely - this being based on extrinisic or relational value. Mackie was arguing for a form of desire fulfillment act utilitarianism which is different to desire utilitarianism (DU).

Arepo wrote:I'm a couple of posts into writing a rhizomic argument for HU in the util forum, so you'll probably find plenty to object to as I go along.

I might create an equivalent structure for DU but lets see how you get on first.

Arepo wrote:I've also invited Alonzo along, so hopefully you won't feel outnumbered

I doubt he will join he has long done the forum thing on iidb.

faithlessgod wrote:I doubt he will join he has long done the forum thing on iidb.

I know, I posted there when he did. IIRC he had a lot of long and seemingly fruitless discussions with intuitionists and egoists of various colours. I'm hoping he'd find this place more welcoming, even if we're still too contrarian to agree on anything

Hey FG,

I was thinking today that you've never said what you actually do...