Message from @sydtko
Discord ID: 654439165534142485
@sydtko not necessarily unless part of the benifit to you is some emotional attachment you have to people and value you place on them
Well, this is all fictional discourse, right?
So the demonstration of the principle is that hypothesizing and constructing counterfactual situations are fictions, they are not literally true
So we've slipped into fictionalism... as always happens
So it's like... what do you want from me? To legitimately have the emotional attachment to them? Because I don't think I'll ever have that
Or do you want me to speak about the principles or belief system I have on how one ought to think about this type of hypothetical?
I don't really care if you have emotional attachment to them or place some kind of moral value on people. I don't generally
Ok, so my emotional attachment seems irrelevant now. So what did you want answered?
I'm not asking you to answer anything lol I'm just saying what benifits you isn't necessary what benifits others so this idea that utilitarianism is generally what egoists want is silly
Why is that silly? If I imagine people slaving away in African, that sounds undesirable
Just the idea of merely imaging it is unpleasant
Boredom, drudgery
Heat, humidity
And idc because I benifit from it
:^)
<:pepeLMAO:644901342216847388> fair enough
Yeah, same. I benefit from the byproduct of their labor, yes
Ye
I wasn't sure if that's what you meant to say? If you benefit from making me annoyed imagining this hypothetical?
Or receiving the benefits of their labor
I see
Enjoying the benefits + enjoying triggering someone
Enjoying the benifits is all
You, I think, most likely... people forced to live in those conditions or merely watch people slave their lives away will necessarily be more empathic towards them though
@Castore You should look over the syllogism and see how it's very bad... intuitively
And there's an equivocation... I went over it twice
@sydtko i think we should norms of assertion based on moores paradox but i dont think thats what the objection above is about this is about,you would have to look into the multiple cognitive collapse objections he makes tbh .
```P1. According to the anti-realist about morality, there are no categorical normative reasons.
p2. If there are no categorical normative reasons, then there are no epistemic reasons for belief.
p3. But there are epistemic reasons for belief.
p4. So there are categorical reasons. (From 2, 3)
c. So the moral anti-realist theory is false. (From 1, 4)```
Yay
And this is why writing is way more important / valuable
He's going from a particular to a general, so he's actually hiding the induction in the deductive premise
"There are no epistemic reasons for belief" means what? ... to me this means agents have reasons to believe particulars. But this doesn't get you to categorical normative reasons
So he's confirming the antecedent
Cat Norm reasons infer epistemic reasons for belief?
P -> Q
Q seems intuitively true
And then he attempts to modus tollens based off the Q
Oh, it's not quite modus tollens, it's another principle
But that's what they're doing
```The authors just mentioned present the incoherence objection as an objection related to practical reason. Thus Bernard Williams:
"Whatever the general utility of having a certain rule, if one has actually reached the point of seeing that the utility of breaking it on a certain occasion is greater than that of following it, then surely it would be pure irrationality not to break it?16"```
```And Smart:
"I conclude that in every case if there is a rule R the keeping of which is in general optimific, but such that in a special sort of circumstances the optimific behaviour is to break R, then in these circumstances we should break R. …I can understand ‘it is optimific’ as a reason for action, but why should ‘it is a member of a class of actions which are usually optimific’ or ‘it is a member of a class of actions which as a class are more optimific than any alternative general class’ be a good reason?18"```