No amount of reality need have the slightest impact on moral realists.
Is there any experiment that could be run that would refute moral realism?
Maybe Clippy is right, we should all be clippists, and we’re just all “wrong” to think otherwise. Clippism—the true objective morality. Clippy seems to think so. I don’t, and I don’t care what Clippy thinks in this regard.
It also doesn’t equate to non-empiricism. Eg “Fish do not feel pain, so angling is not cruel”>
3.If you are like a clippy—an entity that only uses rationality to fulfil arbitrary aims—you won’t be convinced/.Guess what? That has no impact on realism whatsoever. A compelling argument is an argument capable of compelling an agent capable of understanding it, and with a commitment to rationality as an end.
You asked two questions. My reply was meant to indicate that arbitrariness depends on coherence and extrapolation (revision, reflection), both of which Clippy has rather less of whichthan I do.
No amount of difference or disagreement makes the slightest impact on realism. Realists accept that some many or all people are wrong.
Of course.
No amount of reality need have the slightest impact on moral realists.
Is there any experiment that could be run that would refute moral realism?
Maybe Clippy is right, we should all be clippists, and we’re just all “wrong” to think otherwise. Clippism—the true objective morality. Clippy seems to think so. I don’t, and I don’t care what Clippy thinks in this regard.
Realism does not equate to empiricism
It also doesn’t equate to non-empiricism. Eg “Fish do not feel pain, so angling is not cruel”>
3.If you are like a clippy—an entity that only uses rationality to fulfil arbitrary aims—you won’t be convinced/.Guess what? That has no impact on realism whatsoever. A compelling argument is an argument capable of compelling an agent capable of understanding it, and with a commitment to rationality as an end.
Are your aims arbitrary? If not, why are Clippy’s aims arbitrary, and your’s not arbitrary?
Clippy doesn’t care aboiut having a coherent set of aims, or about revising and improving its aims.
That doesn’t answer my question.
You asked two questions. My reply was meant to indicate that arbitrariness depends on coherence and extrapolation (revision, reflection), both of which Clippy has rather less of whichthan I do.