I believe that pushes the arbitrariness to the wrong level. What’s (arguably) arbitrary is the metaethical system itself. That doesn’t mean ethics-level questions have an arbitrary answer in this sense.
Been a long time since I’ve watched Love and Death, but I have the urge to shout “Yes, but subjectivity is objective!”.
IMO, arbitrariness cascades down levels of concreteness. it’s not real because there is no possible way to confirm whether it corresponds to observations. At any level—there’s no way to determine if a metaethics generates ethics which correspond to reality.
IMO, arbitrariness cascades down levels of concreteness.
That doesn’t mean the answer can be arbitrarily picked. If I arbitrarily decide on a statement being a theorem in a set theory, I might still be wrong even if its axioms are in some sense arbitrary.
I believe that pushes the arbitrariness to the wrong level. What’s (arguably) arbitrary is the metaethical system itself. That doesn’t mean ethics-level questions have an arbitrary answer in this sense.
Been a long time since I’ve watched Love and Death, but I have the urge to shout “Yes, but subjectivity is objective!”.
IMO, arbitrariness cascades down levels of concreteness. it’s not real because there is no possible way to confirm whether it corresponds to observations. At any level—there’s no way to determine if a metaethics generates ethics which correspond to reality.
That doesn’t mean the answer can be arbitrarily picked. If I arbitrarily decide on a statement being a theorem in a set theory, I might still be wrong even if its axioms are in some sense arbitrary.