Really enjoying the series! Thank you for these videos. The arguement from psychophysical harmony is facisnating!
pre-sage
Is "pleasure seems good" an intuition? Because it seems more like an experience to me. The relation of "i experience pleasure" -> "pleasure seems good" seems to be the same relation as "i see this rock" -> "this rock seems to exists"; there is an intuition involved, namely that our experiences correspond to reality unless there is evidence to the contrary, but it is the same intuition in both cases, so it isn't limited to axiology. (I think it would be called an epistemic intuition.)
I suspect that a) many philosophers would disagree with this take and b) this take sows the seeds that grow into my rejection of the Argument from Psychophysical Harmony.
photon
What about, 'a rock is good for hurting people?'
litigioussociety
How does Axiology handle conflicts of interest? For example, suppose torturing babies is bad. Also suppose that discovering the cure for cancer is good. Is torturing babies to discover the cure for cancer a good thing or a bad thing?
mesplin
Isn't "I like chocolate icecream" overarched by "pleasure seems good" and ultimately and axiological intuition?
theweirddeveloper
See this is where you lose me a bit. For me, saying that something is good is just an expression or declaration of approval. Hence, I can't make sense of this idea of axiological intuitions. I don't have an intuition that the proposition "pleasure is good" is true. Rather, I approve of pleasure, so I say that pleasure is good. The only proposition here to which I could assign a credence to proceed with the bayesian calculus, would be "I approve of pleasure". I have a really high credence in this proposition, but it's probably useless for your argument.
Nickesponja
Giving a dog some chocolate ice cream. Not an axiological intuition. Neither a good or bad thing, right?
mesplin
It's a little hilarious to see atheists in the comments try to debunk these videos before you even get to the argument for theism; they're just trying to argue against your way of explaining these basic things, as if they're unable to just wait and say "I'll see where this goes from here." The harmful bias couldn't be more obvious.
Konxovar
There isn't a need for this. You're leaving this to a subjective interpretation when you should just be matching a definition to the evidence.
If you're making a formal argument that something is good, all you have to do is define what you mean by "good" and show that it is so.
I.e. if I said "pleasure is good" but then show it resulting in harm, that's not going to match the value of good.
It's just so inneficient to rely on intuitions of goodness without any reasoning and explanation when it's crucial to the argument, especially this argument.
0:01:36
0:02:19
0:03:17