Eliezer, I think I kind-of understand by now why you don’t call yourself a relativist. Would you say that it’s the “psychological unity of mankind” that distinguishes you from relativists?
A relativist would stress that humans in different cultures all have different—though perhaps related—ideas about “good” and “right” and so on. I believe your position is that the bulk of human minds are similar enough that they would arrive at the same conclusions given enough time and access to enough facts; and therefore, that it’s an objective matter of fact what the human concepts of “right” and “good” actually mean.
And since we are human, there’s no problem in us continuing to use those words.
Am I understanding correctly?
It seems like your position would become more akin to relativism if the “psychological unity” turned out to be dubious, or if our galaxy turned out to be swarming with aliens, and people were forced to deal with genuinely different minds. In those cases, would there still be anything to separate you from actual relativists?
(In either case, it would still be an objective matter of fact what any given mind would call “good” if given enough time—but that would be a much less profound fact than it is for a species all alone and in a state of psychological unity.)
Eliezer, I think I kind-of understand by now why you don’t call yourself a relativist. Would you say that it’s the “psychological unity of mankind” that distinguishes you from relativists?
A relativist would stress that humans in different cultures all have different—though perhaps related—ideas about “good” and “right” and so on. I believe your position is that the bulk of human minds are similar enough that they would arrive at the same conclusions given enough time and access to enough facts; and therefore, that it’s an objective matter of fact what the human concepts of “right” and “good” actually mean.
And since we are human, there’s no problem in us continuing to use those words.
Am I understanding correctly?
It seems like your position would become more akin to relativism if the “psychological unity” turned out to be dubious, or if our galaxy turned out to be swarming with aliens, and people were forced to deal with genuinely different minds. In those cases, would there still be anything to separate you from actual relativists?
(In either case, it would still be an objective matter of fact what any given mind would call “good” if given enough time—but that would be a much less profound fact than it is for a species all alone and in a state of psychological unity.)