A Modal Argument for Moral Realism

Christian Coons claims to have proved that some acts have moral properties. I doubt he's done that.

OUTLINE

0:00 Intro & Outline
1:52 Moral Realism & Error Theory
7:20 Supervenience
12:53 Coons’ Argument
17:36 Symmetry Problem
20:03 Breaking Symmetry: First Pass
29:01 Breaking Symmetry: Second Pass
39:21 Summary & Conclusion

RESOURCES

[adriang.fuentes]

I loved the video. Metaethics is one of my favorite philosophy subjects. I dont know exactly why, so I will have to give it some thought, but my intuition seems to find this argument more persuasive than the modal ontological argument. Thanks for what you do!

[vaclavmiller]

Looking forward to Shafer-Landau's appearance on the channel (and the publication of his upcoming project with Cuneo and Bengson...)!

[sathviksidd]

Great video
Just shows symmetry breakers are difficult to construct

[tdodyssey]

I was literally discussing this with my friend yesterday and then this video was in my recommended

[kito-]

Took a quick look at the paper, I can see where this is going. Good stuff!

[pesilaratnayake]

I don't understand why moral supervenience should be accepted, other than for the sake of argument. Surely worlds W and W* could have different moral facts X and Y, respectively, and identical non-moral facts Z or Z*, as long as no entity whose knowledge of X or Y affects Z or Z*, respectively. Examples are: no entity knows X or Y, or a deistic god initiates Z, then applies X or Y but has no access to Z afterwards, and informs no other entities of X or Y. Moral supervenience would be more convincing if there was a way to confirm any entity with access at least in part to any moral facts.

[danielkelly]

Just started the video but…

Kane B and Shafer-Landau?
Oh that is going to be a cracking one!

[Hello-vzmd]

Joe are you aware of Dr Alex Malpass 3 hours long discussion on Thought adventure podcast YouTube channel? Thanks

[BatmanArkham]

4:22 😲😲😲EEEE disappointed unsubscribed

[TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Any chance you and Pat Flynn can dialogue on your arguments against divine simplicity?

[DeusExHomeboy]

Interesting take dawg, have you made any developments in this sector?
Any thoughts on "universal moral homogeneity, followed from apparent overall universal homogeneity"?

[ceceroxy]

I see no reason why anyone would have any moral obligations or duties on naturalism. I think you can make up all the philosophical arguments you want, I would just counter with "says who". What makes anything morally binding on naturalism.

[goldenalt]

What's the benefit of being a moral realist? Is there any ought claim that couldn't merely be rewritten to match some other form of moral theory?

[Autists-Guide]

Thanks for the video.
I keep trying with this morality stuff but I just can't get further than ... moral properties and moral truth. What does that even mean?
Treating morals and ethics as separate but connected information systems makes sense to me but how to get everyone to use Britannica instead of Stanford? IDK.

[GodisgudAQW]

I may be misunderstanding the water example for the argument against reasoning from coherence to metaphysical possibility, but I don't think that the coherence of water as H3O instead of H2O actually shows that something can be coherent without being metaphysically possible. This is simply because I don't think it's actually possible to construct a coherent H3O water given the definition of hydrogen. If the electron bonding and chemical processes worked differently, then it wouldn't be hydrogen, but hydrogen*.

So the only way to coherently create water with H3O would be to assume different laws, which assumes different hydrogen atoms, rather than true hydrogen atoms. And in a world where H3O is coherent with the definition of water, the non-moral properties of that world differ vastly from ours, and hence no such world provides a counter-example to the reverse possibility premise.

Thinking ahead, though, my understanding of coherence while keeping non-moral properties equivalent just is the actual world. And hence the possibility premise begs the question. That would be my critique.

[sathviksidd]

I'm having trouble differentiating b/w non cognitivism and error theory

[naparzanieklawiatury]

Did you just say "what butter way to end" at 42:23? xD

[timhorton]

When will that Discussion between Kane B and Shafer-Landau be?

[Tajjwar]

I misread it and thought this was a proof of lewis' modal realism 😭

[tammygibson]

I want to comment, but I am just in awe. I discovered how much I did not know about logic about 5 years ago. Ever since I have found videos like yours to be a great source to learn more. The video is understandable, but slightly above my head. I inferred that symmetry involves opposites. I need a better understanding of symmetry to authentically comprehend this video. It seems like you defeated the argument successfully. I am not qualified to judge this one.