I’m curating this post. I’ll try to outline what I particularly appreciate about it later, but for now, I’ll just excerpt this bit:
The standard practice – both amongst realists and anti-realists — often works within an implicitly realist frame, on which one’s intuitions are (imperfect) evidence about the true underlying principles (why would you think that?), which are typically assumed to have pr operties are like consistency, coherence, and so on. To find these principles, one attempts to “curve fit” one’s intuitions – and different ethicists make different trade-offs between e.g. the simplicity and elegance of the principles themselves, vs. the accuracy with which they predict the supposed “data.”[5] But if this practice isn’t helping us towards the objective normative truth, why would we go in for it?
I’m curating this post. I’ll try to outline what I particularly appreciate about it later, but for now, I’ll just excerpt this bit: