Less controversial is a very long way from objective—why do you think that “caring about the flourishing of society” is objectively ethical?
Re the idea of an attractor, idk, history has sure had lot of popular beliefs I find abhorrent. How do we know there even is convergence at all rather than cycles? And why does being convergent imply objective? If you told me that the supermajority of civilization concluded that torturing criminals was morally good, that would not make me think it was ethical.
My overall take is that objective is just an incredibly strong word for which you need incredibly strong justifications, and your justifications don’t seem close, they seem more about “this is a Schelling point” or “this is a reasonable default that we can build a coalition around”
Less controversial is a very long way from objective—why do you think that “caring about the flourishing of society” is objectively ethical?
Re the idea of an attractor, idk, history has sure had lot of popular beliefs I find abhorrent. How do we know there even is convergence at all rather than cycles? And why does being convergent imply objective? If you told me that the supermajority of civilization concluded that torturing criminals was morally good, that would not make me think it was ethical.
My overall take is that objective is just an incredibly strong word for which you need incredibly strong justifications, and your justifications don’t seem close, they seem more about “this is a Schelling point” or “this is a reasonable default that we can build a coalition around”