And I may not know what this question is, actually; I may not be able to print out my current guess nor my surrounding framework; but I know, as all non-moral-relativists instinctively know, that the question surely is not just “How can I do whatever I want?”
I’m not sure you’ve done enough to get away from being a “moral relativist”, which is not the same as being an egoist who only cares about his own desires. “Moral relativism” just means this (Wikipedia):
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths [...] Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth.
Unless I’ve radically misunderstood, I think that’s close to your position. Admittedly, it’s an objective matter of fact whether some action is good according to the “blob of a computation” (i.e. set of ethical concerns) that any specific person cares about. But there’s no objective way to determine that one “blob” is any more correct than another—except by the standards of those blobs themselves.
(By the way, I hope this isn’t perceived as particular hostility on my part: I think some very ethical and upstanding people have been relativists. It’s also not an argument that your position is wrong.)
And I may not know what this question is, actually; I may not be able to print out my current guess nor my surrounding framework; but I know, as all non-moral-relativists instinctively know, that the question surely is not just “How can I do whatever I want?”
I’m not sure you’ve done enough to get away from being a “moral relativist”, which is not the same as being an egoist who only cares about his own desires. “Moral relativism” just means this (Wikipedia):
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths [...] Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth.
Unless I’ve radically misunderstood, I think that’s close to your position. Admittedly, it’s an objective matter of fact whether some action is good according to the “blob of a computation” (i.e. set of ethical concerns) that any specific person cares about. But there’s no objective way to determine that one “blob” is any more correct than another—except by the standards of those blobs themselves.
(By the way, I hope this isn’t perceived as particular hostility on my part: I think some very ethical and upstanding people have been relativists. It’s also not an argument that your position is wrong.)
It’s fairly clear that, at least according to EY, the blobs are universal across all humans.