"Do people discover or create their food preferences? I don’t know about you, but when I try food for the first time, I don’t “create” whether I like it or not."
This is true for individuals. But it is not necessarily true for forms of life. Individuals are born into particular forms of life, hence their tastes and preferences are shaped by such. This may not seem true for people, but I suspect it is because our western forms of life are much more global and hence exposed to many different types of food derived from many different forms of life across the globe.
I am reminded of the story of the Tasmanian Aboriginals who were cut off from the mainland for thousands of years and consequently lost the cultural know how to fish. This despite the fact that Tasmania has an absolute abundance of easily gotten fish. When Captain Cook discovered Tasmania he offered the locals fish as a goodwill gift - they were repulsed.
J.P. Andrew claims:
"Moral Realism: there exist stance-independent moral truths — truths about what one morally ought and ought not to do that obtain independently of anyone’s beliefs, preferences, desires, emotions, or attitudes."
I think there is a fair amount of truth in this, but not in the way that entails moral realism: at least not in the way I understand it (mind you, I find it all quite confusing as to exactly what they mean). To clarify, I am inclined to realism in spirit, but not in any objective sense that seems to imply moral realism.
As individual I am born into a form of life in which I am socially and encultured into a moral sensibility that I did not create or choose, and which I am soon made aware is indifferent to my beliefs, preferences, desires, emotions, or attitudes. That is because I am bequeath from my parents and the wider culture - beliefs, practices, skills, language, and moral values - that are essential to survive and prosper in the form of life that I am born into. Hence different forms of life bequeath different beliefs, practices, morals values etc.
These beliefs, practices etc, are independent of individuals in the same way as the rules of grammar are independent of the individuals preferences, desires etc. They are not however independent of the demands in which our unique forms of life place on us. When JPA claims: "morality presents itself as something to which we are answerable", there is again a sense in which I understand. Life demands certain responses from us in order for us to survive - another way of saying this (perhaps less precisely) is that we are answerable to life for our survival. What complicates this picture, is that different forms of life place different demands upon us.
Anyway, I could go on indefinitely, but hopefully some of this has made sense.
Forgive me, a couple more things. You say: "Morality does not appear to me to possess authority." It does to me. Though I am not sure what you mean by 'appear'. But it does compel certain attitudes. But I do not hold that morality possesses objective, universal authority.
"it seems that the only possible way to adequately critique realism by accounting for realist “seemings” is to engage in empirical psychology."
This is pretty much Nietzsche's view, which I am partial to insofar as a critique of objective, universal moral values.
I'm not sure what's meant by "appear" myself. This isn't an issue for me though. It's just another problem for JPA and others. Compelling attitudes isn't authority. I'm compelled to use the bathroom. I wouldn't consider that authority.
I didn't say that I feel no moral compulsions. This is a false and rather nasty misrepresentation of what I've said, and you've made it worse by implying I'm a psychopath.
You can apologize and retract the false accusation. Otherwise you will be blocked. I have no patience for bullshit like this.
"Psychopathy is characterized by a pronounced lack of empathic concern for the welfare of others, lack of empathy or remorse, poor impulse control, antisocial behavior, and a propensity for uninhibited and selfish behavior. It is also frequently associated with reduced emotional expression and reduced stress and fear response.
In addition, it is typically linked to impulsive action, risk taking, exploiting others, cold and emotionless behavior, callousness, manipulative behavior, and appearing charming at least in one’s initial interactions with others.
I do not recall making any statements about my psychology remotely related to any of this. So I don’t know what people would even want me to distinguish my views from this. I’ve denied that philosophical intuitions are a legitimate psychological phenomenon. I’ve stated that I don’t have realist intuitions. Neither of these claims has anything to do with psychopathy.
Psychopathy is a hypothesized mental illness associated with a certain pattern of behavior. It has nothing to do with people’s philosophical views. People accusing me of psychopathy are either ignorant, malicious, or both."
Accusing someone of psychopathy is very serious. It immediately suggests I am some kind of evil lunatic, and associates me with serial killers and genocidal maniacs.
I have no idea how you could have formed that impression from anything that I said.
"Do people discover or create their food preferences? I don’t know about you, but when I try food for the first time, I don’t “create” whether I like it or not."
This is true for individuals. But it is not necessarily true for forms of life. Individuals are born into particular forms of life, hence their tastes and preferences are shaped by such. This may not seem true for people, but I suspect it is because our western forms of life are much more global and hence exposed to many different types of food derived from many different forms of life across the globe.
I am reminded of the story of the Tasmanian Aboriginals who were cut off from the mainland for thousands of years and consequently lost the cultural know how to fish. This despite the fact that Tasmania has an absolute abundance of easily gotten fish. When Captain Cook discovered Tasmania he offered the locals fish as a goodwill gift - they were repulsed.
J.P. Andrew claims:
"Moral Realism: there exist stance-independent moral truths — truths about what one morally ought and ought not to do that obtain independently of anyone’s beliefs, preferences, desires, emotions, or attitudes."
I think there is a fair amount of truth in this, but not in the way that entails moral realism: at least not in the way I understand it (mind you, I find it all quite confusing as to exactly what they mean). To clarify, I am inclined to realism in spirit, but not in any objective sense that seems to imply moral realism.
As individual I am born into a form of life in which I am socially and encultured into a moral sensibility that I did not create or choose, and which I am soon made aware is indifferent to my beliefs, preferences, desires, emotions, or attitudes. That is because I am bequeath from my parents and the wider culture - beliefs, practices, skills, language, and moral values - that are essential to survive and prosper in the form of life that I am born into. Hence different forms of life bequeath different beliefs, practices, morals values etc.
These beliefs, practices etc, are independent of individuals in the same way as the rules of grammar are independent of the individuals preferences, desires etc. They are not however independent of the demands in which our unique forms of life place on us. When JPA claims: "morality presents itself as something to which we are answerable", there is again a sense in which I understand. Life demands certain responses from us in order for us to survive - another way of saying this (perhaps less precisely) is that we are answerable to life for our survival. What complicates this picture, is that different forms of life place different demands upon us.
Anyway, I could go on indefinitely, but hopefully some of this has made sense.
Forgive me, a couple more things. You say: "Morality does not appear to me to possess authority." It does to me. Though I am not sure what you mean by 'appear'. But it does compel certain attitudes. But I do not hold that morality possesses objective, universal authority.
"it seems that the only possible way to adequately critique realism by accounting for realist “seemings” is to engage in empirical psychology."
This is pretty much Nietzsche's view, which I am partial to insofar as a critique of objective, universal moral values.
I'm not sure what's meant by "appear" myself. This isn't an issue for me though. It's just another problem for JPA and others. Compelling attitudes isn't authority. I'm compelled to use the bathroom. I wouldn't consider that authority.
I didn't say that I feel no moral compulsions. This is a false and rather nasty misrepresentation of what I've said, and you've made it worse by implying I'm a psychopath.
You can apologize and retract the false accusation. Otherwise you will be blocked. I have no patience for bullshit like this.
As I said to someone else:
"Psychopathy is characterized by a pronounced lack of empathic concern for the welfare of others, lack of empathy or remorse, poor impulse control, antisocial behavior, and a propensity for uninhibited and selfish behavior. It is also frequently associated with reduced emotional expression and reduced stress and fear response.
In addition, it is typically linked to impulsive action, risk taking, exploiting others, cold and emotionless behavior, callousness, manipulative behavior, and appearing charming at least in one’s initial interactions with others.
I do not recall making any statements about my psychology remotely related to any of this. So I don’t know what people would even want me to distinguish my views from this. I’ve denied that philosophical intuitions are a legitimate psychological phenomenon. I’ve stated that I don’t have realist intuitions. Neither of these claims has anything to do with psychopathy.
Psychopathy is a hypothesized mental illness associated with a certain pattern of behavior. It has nothing to do with people’s philosophical views. People accusing me of psychopathy are either ignorant, malicious, or both."
Accusing someone of psychopathy is very serious. It immediately suggests I am some kind of evil lunatic, and associates me with serial killers and genocidal maniacs.
I have no idea how you could have formed that impression from anything that I said.