Thanks! I think I can see your pov clearer now. One thing that often leads me astray is how words seem to latch different meanings, and this makes discussion and clarification difficult (as in ‘realism’ and ‘objective’). I think my crux, given what you say, is that I indeed don’t see the point of having a neutral, outsider, point of view of the universe in ethics. I’d need to think more about it. I think trying to be neutral or impartial makes sense in science, where the goal is understanding a mind-independent world. But in ethics, I don’t see why that outsider view would have any special authority unless we choose to give it weight. Objectivity in the sense of ‘from nowhere’ isn’t automatically normatively relevant, I feel. I can see why, for example, when pragmatically trying to satisfy your preferences and being a human in contact with other humans with their own preferences, it makes sense to include in the social contract some specialized and limited uses of objectivity: they’re useful tools for coordination, debate and decision-making, and it benefits the maximization of our personal preferences to have some figures of power (rulers, judges, etc...) who are constrained to follow them. But that wouldn’t make them ‘true’ in any sense: they are just the result of agreements and negotiated duties for attaining certain agreed-upon ends.
Thanks! I think I can see your pov clearer now. One thing that often leads me astray is how words seem to latch different meanings, and this makes discussion and clarification difficult (as in ‘realism’ and ‘objective’). I think my crux, given what you say, is that I indeed don’t see the point of having a neutral, outsider, point of view of the universe in ethics. I’d need to think more about it. I think trying to be neutral or impartial makes sense in science, where the goal is understanding a mind-independent world. But in ethics, I don’t see why that outsider view would have any special authority unless we choose to give it weight. Objectivity in the sense of ‘from nowhere’ isn’t automatically normatively relevant, I feel. I can see why, for example, when pragmatically trying to satisfy your preferences and being a human in contact with other humans with their own preferences, it makes sense to include in the social contract some specialized and limited uses of objectivity: they’re useful tools for coordination, debate and decision-making, and it benefits the maximization of our personal preferences to have some figures of power (rulers, judges, etc...) who are constrained to follow them. But that wouldn’t make them ‘true’ in any sense: they are just the result of agreements and negotiated duties for attaining certain agreed-upon ends.