Executive summary: In this exploratory and informal post, the author argues that moral realism—the idea that moral facts exist independently of human beliefs—is implausible, primarily because evolutionary and empirical explanations better account for our moral intuitions, which lack the kind of reliability, feedback, and motivational force typically associated with objective truths.
Key points:
Evolutionary debunking undermines moral realism: Our moral beliefs can be explained through evolutionary pressures and cultural evolution without invoking independent moral facts, suggesting such facts are unnecessary and epistemically unreliable.
Intuitions alone aren’t enough: Moral intuitions lack consistent empirical feedback, making them a poor foundation for claims of objective truth—unlike intuitions in domains like math or logic, which are reinforced by empirical success and feedback.
Moral facts lack motivational force: Even if moral facts existed, it’s unclear why they would motivate action—unlike instrumental knowledge (e.g., math), which can align with an agent’s goals and can be used to convince others.
Deliberative indispensability and normative realism: The strongest argument for realism may be Enoch’s claim that deliberation presupposes normative realism, but the author resists this, interpreting preferences and deliberation as descriptively rather than normatively motivated.
Empirical and decision-theoretic tests of realism fall short: The author is skeptical of empirical predictions (e.g., smarter agents converging on moral truths) and wagers (e.g., the Normative Realist’s Wager), noting that such arguments often smuggle in realist assumptions.
EA can still thrive under anti-realism: Despite rejecting moral realism, the author affirms commitment to EA principles, seeing them as a strong expression of preferences and values rather than objective moral truths, and argues this framing still supports persuasion and institutional design.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: In this exploratory and informal post, the author argues that moral realism—the idea that moral facts exist independently of human beliefs—is implausible, primarily because evolutionary and empirical explanations better account for our moral intuitions, which lack the kind of reliability, feedback, and motivational force typically associated with objective truths.
Key points:
Evolutionary debunking undermines moral realism: Our moral beliefs can be explained through evolutionary pressures and cultural evolution without invoking independent moral facts, suggesting such facts are unnecessary and epistemically unreliable.
Intuitions alone aren’t enough: Moral intuitions lack consistent empirical feedback, making them a poor foundation for claims of objective truth—unlike intuitions in domains like math or logic, which are reinforced by empirical success and feedback.
Moral facts lack motivational force: Even if moral facts existed, it’s unclear why they would motivate action—unlike instrumental knowledge (e.g., math), which can align with an agent’s goals and can be used to convince others.
Deliberative indispensability and normative realism: The strongest argument for realism may be Enoch’s claim that deliberation presupposes normative realism, but the author resists this, interpreting preferences and deliberation as descriptively rather than normatively motivated.
Empirical and decision-theoretic tests of realism fall short: The author is skeptical of empirical predictions (e.g., smarter agents converging on moral truths) and wagers (e.g., the Normative Realist’s Wager), noting that such arguments often smuggle in realist assumptions.
EA can still thrive under anti-realism: Despite rejecting moral realism, the author affirms commitment to EA principles, seeing them as a strong expression of preferences and values rather than objective moral truths, and argues this framing still supports persuasion and institutional design.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.