When I don’t really think about it, I basically feel like moral realism is definitely true and like there’s no question there at all
When I do really think about, my independent impression is that moral realism seems to basically make no sense and be almost guaranteed to be false
But then lots of smart people who’ve thougt about metaethics a lot do seem to think moral realism is somewhere between plausible or very likely, so I update up to something like a 1% chance (0.5% in this spreadsheet)
I think that this is fairly different from the startup founder example, though I guess it ends up in a similar place of it being easy to feel like “the odds are good” even if on some level I believe/recognise that they’re not.
Actually, that comment—and this spreadsheet—implied that my all-things-considered belief (not independent impression) is that there’s a ~0.5-1% chance of something like moral realism being true. But that doesn’t seem like the reasonable all-things-considered belief to have, given that it seems to me that:
The average credence in that claim from smart people who’ve spent a while thinking about it would be considerably higher
One useful proxy is the 2013 PhilPapers survey, which suggests that, out of some sample of philosophers, 56.4% subscribe to moral realism, 27.7% subscribe to moral anti-realism, and 15.9% were “other”
I’m deeply confused about this topic (which pushes against relying strongly on my own independent impression)
So maybe actually my all-things-considered belief is (or should be) closer to 50% (i.e., ~100 times as high as is suggested in this spreadsheet), and the 0.5% number is somewhere in-between my independent impression and my all-things-considered belief.
That might further help explain why it usually doesn’t feel super weird to me to kind-of “act on a moral realism wager”.
But yeah, I mostly feel pretty confused about what this topic even is, what I should think about it, and what I do think about it.
Weirdly, for me, it’s like:
When I don’t really think about it, I basically feel like moral realism is definitely true and like there’s no question there at all
When I do really think about, my independent impression is that moral realism seems to basically make no sense and be almost guaranteed to be false
But then lots of smart people who’ve thougt about metaethics a lot do seem to think moral realism is somewhere between plausible or very likely, so I update up to something like a 1% chance (0.5% in this spreadsheet)
I think that this is fairly different from the startup founder example, though I guess it ends up in a similar place of it being easy to feel like “the odds are good” even if on some level I believe/recognise that they’re not.
Actually, that comment—and this spreadsheet—implied that my all-things-considered belief (not independent impression) is that there’s a ~0.5-1% chance of something like moral realism being true. But that doesn’t seem like the reasonable all-things-considered belief to have, given that it seems to me that:
The average credence in that claim from smart people who’ve spent a while thinking about it would be considerably higher
One useful proxy is the 2013 PhilPapers survey, which suggests that, out of some sample of philosophers, 56.4% subscribe to moral realism, 27.7% subscribe to moral anti-realism, and 15.9% were “other”
I’m deeply confused about this topic (which pushes against relying strongly on my own independent impression)
So maybe actually my all-things-considered belief is (or should be) closer to 50% (i.e., ~100 times as high as is suggested in this spreadsheet), and the 0.5% number is somewhere in-between my independent impression and my all-things-considered belief.
That might further help explain why it usually doesn’t feel super weird to me to kind-of “act on a moral realism wager”.
But yeah, I mostly feel pretty confused about what this topic even is, what I should think about it, and what I do think about it.