Hm. I agree that you can disagree about some world-state that you’d like, but I don’t understand how we could move that from “we disagree” to “there is one specific world-state that is the standard.” So I stand by “no objective standard” for now.
If we disagree about what world state is best, there has to be some kind of statement I believe and you don’t, right? Otherwise, we wouldn’t disagree. Some kind of statement like “This world state is best.”
But the difference isn’t about some measurable property of the world, but about internal algorithms for deciding what to do.
Sure, to the extent that humans are irrational and can pit one desire against another, arguing about how to determine “best” is not a total waste of time, but I don’t think that has much bearing on subjectivity.
I’m losing the thread of the conversation at this point.
Hm. I agree that you can disagree about some world-state that you’d like, but I don’t understand how we could move that from “we disagree” to “there is one specific world-state that is the standard.” So I stand by “no objective standard” for now.
I assume you are talking about proper or desirable world-states rather than actual ones.
I didn’t say it was the standard.
The idea is this.
If we disagree about what world state is best, there has to be some kind of statement I believe and you don’t, right? Otherwise, we wouldn’t disagree. Some kind of statement like “This world state is best.”
But the difference isn’t about some measurable property of the world, but about internal algorithms for deciding what to do.
Sure, to the extent that humans are irrational and can pit one desire against another, arguing about how to determine “best” is not a total waste of time, but I don’t think that has much bearing on subjectivity.
I’m losing the thread of the conversation at this point.
I have no solution to that problem.