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 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.