>By contrast, for moral anti-realists, a decision to thwart others’ life goals (by violating the ethics of cooperation/coordination) is always a further question, separate from “What are my life goals?” Under moral anti-realism, morality-inspired life goals (including, e.g., views on population ethics) aren’t meant to apply to everyone, so there’s no logical link from having a certain life goal to considering oneself justified to override others’ life goals.
On the other hand , many goals and preferences are mutually exclusive. Two people can be doctors, but only one can be president.
>To give an analogy, just because someone politically self-identifies as a Democrat doesn’t mean that they endorse poisoning the teacups of Republican voters.
But every democrat vote is an attempt to thwart republicans from getting the republican government they want.
>. Thwarting others’ life goals is an uncooperative, anti-social stance precisely because moral anti-realism is true.
Yet it’s also unavoidable in the case of mutually exclusive goals.
You can’t claim to have solved morality, if you can’t say what to do in the case of conflict.
What you comment is true but I don’t feel like it invalidates any of what I’ve written. (Insofar as I’m claiming we have solved something, it would be metaethics and not morality.) Regarding what to do in case of conflict, I have emphasized that thwarting others’ life goals by going outside the political and societal norms that we have is anti-social, disrespectful, uncooperative, selfish/non-altruistic, etc. To many people, this observation will have sufficient motivating force. If someone has strong anti-social tendencies and Machiavellian dispositions or worldview, they may not feel the same way, in which case there may not be a “gotcha” argument from morality that will just persuade them. But hopefully those of us I think of as the good ones can notice that and band together and prevent people like that from gaining too much influence and ruining things.
>By contrast, for moral anti-realists, a decision to thwart others’ life goals (by violating the ethics of cooperation/coordination) is always a further question, separate from “What are my life goals?” Under moral anti-realism, morality-inspired life goals (including, e.g., views on population ethics) aren’t meant to apply to everyone, so there’s no logical link from having a certain life goal to considering oneself justified to override others’ life goals.
On the other hand , many goals and preferences are mutually exclusive. Two people can be doctors, but only one can be president.
>To give an analogy, just because someone politically self-identifies as a Democrat doesn’t mean that they endorse poisoning the teacups of Republican voters.
But every democrat vote is an attempt to thwart republicans from getting the republican government they want.
>. Thwarting others’ life goals is an uncooperative, anti-social stance precisely because moral anti-realism is true.
Yet it’s also unavoidable in the case of mutually exclusive goals.
You can’t claim to have solved morality, if you can’t say what to do in the case of conflict.
Anti realism as such isn’t a moral theory.
What you comment is true but I don’t feel like it invalidates any of what I’ve written. (Insofar as I’m claiming we have solved something, it would be metaethics and not morality.) Regarding what to do in case of conflict, I have emphasized that thwarting others’ life goals by going outside the political and societal norms that we have is anti-social, disrespectful, uncooperative, selfish/non-altruistic, etc. To many people, this observation will have sufficient motivating force. If someone has strong anti-social tendencies and Machiavellian dispositions or worldview, they may not feel the same way, in which case there may not be a “gotcha” argument from morality that will just persuade them. But hopefully those of us I think of as the good ones can notice that and band together and prevent people like that from gaining too much influence and ruining things.