If you think nothing is “valuable in itself” / “objectively valuable”, why do you think so?
Value isn’t a physical property, even an emergent one.
How do you know that disinterested (not game-theoretic or instrumental) altruism is irrational / doesn’t make any sense?
That’s a different question. Rationality is defined in terms of values, but they don’t have to be objective values. There can even be facts about how ethics should work, but,in view of the above,they would be facts of a game theoretic sort, not facts by virtue of correspondence to moral properties. If you want to be altruistic, then the buck stops there, and it makes sense for you—where “makes sense” means instrumental rationality. But altruism isn’t a fact about the world that you are compelled to believe by epistemic rationality.
Thanks for your answer, but I am looking for arguments, not just statements or opinions. How do you know that value is not a physical property? What do you mean when you say that altruism is not a consequence of epistemic rationality, and how do you know?
Value isn’t a physical property because it doesn’t feature in physics. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact about physics, like saying there is no physical theory of ghosts.
What do you mean when you say that altruism is not a consequence of epistemic rationality,
I mean that every argument for altruism I have seen is either based directly on personal preference, or based on an assumption about objective values. But objective value isn’t a physical thing: people who talk about are assuming the world works that way...because they have a personal preference. Objective values are a construction, because you can’t measure value with an instrument, and show it was there all the time. People construct value that way because they think things ought to be that way—but a subjective preference for objectivity is still a subjective preference. So actually both arguments come down to subjective preference.
A lot of the problem is that you have been assuming that moral realism and obligatory altruism are true by default, and arguing against them. But Occam’s razor is against both of them ,so it is for you to argue for them.
Sam Harris thinks the flourishing of conscious beings is valuable. That’s his opinion …where’s the objectivity.? You agree...wheres the objectivity? Two subjective beliefs that coincide don’t add up to objectivity.
Value isn’t a physical property, even an emergent one.
That’s a different question. Rationality is defined in terms of values, but they don’t have to be objective values. There can even be facts about how ethics should work, but,in view of the above,they would be facts of a game theoretic sort, not facts by virtue of correspondence to moral properties. If you want to be altruistic, then the buck stops there, and it makes sense for you—where “makes sense” means instrumental rationality. But altruism isn’t a fact about the world that you are compelled to believe by epistemic rationality.
Thanks for your answer, but I am looking for arguments, not just statements or opinions. How do you know that value is not a physical property? What do you mean when you say that altruism is not a consequence of epistemic rationality, and how do you know?
Value isn’t a physical property because it doesn’t feature in physics. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact about physics, like saying there is no physical theory of ghosts.
I mean that every argument for altruism I have seen is either based directly on personal preference, or based on an assumption about objective values. But objective value isn’t a physical thing: people who talk about are assuming the world works that way...because they have a personal preference. Objective values are a construction, because you can’t measure value with an instrument, and show it was there all the time. People construct value that way because they think things ought to be that way—but a subjective preference for objectivity is still a subjective preference. So actually both arguments come down to subjective preference.
A lot of the problem is that you have been assuming that moral realism and obligatory altruism are true by default, and arguing against them. But Occam’s razor is against both of them ,so it is for you to argue for them.
Sam Harris thinks the flourishing of conscious beings is valuable. That’s his opinion …where’s the objectivity.? You agree...wheres the objectivity? Two subjective beliefs that coincide don’t add up to objectivity.