I think these are good criticisms of lots of online realist argumentative strategies.
“All of the facts are descriptive facts” is a big universal claim. Do you believe the existential claim “there are no irreducible normative facts” because of the universal one? Is a fact biconditionally descriptive?
Suppose I’m teaching someone to play chess and I show them how the pawn works. Is “the pawn moves like this” a descriptive fact? If so, what is it describing?
Does your “Nuremberg argument” (I think that’s what you called it right?) argue that it would be absurd for someone to act in accordance with the moral facts? (I.e. think they can act in ways that are impossible for them to act, would just want to act in accordance with such facts, etc).
Though what strikes me as most absurd would be accepting that one would have a moral obligation to commit paradigmatic evil acts, like torture.
Considering a reverse case, I think this point can be appreciated. (Maybe you disagree?) Consider someone who discovers that caring about the poor and giving away 30% of their money is stance-independently morally required. Suppose they do it. Suppose you put a similar case forward for me. I don’t want to give away 30% of my money. But suppose I do it anyway. Whatever absurdities we might want to bring up (I.e. am i saying we can act without motivation-though some philosophers I like accept this can be done) don’t seem as strong as the absurdity in ‘accepting’ Nuremberg arguments. By which I mean, accepting the conclusion that one would be obligated to act in such and such way (as opposed to just saying they wouldn’t do it-which I take is one of your primary targets in using this style of argument).
I think these are good criticisms of lots of online realist argumentative strategies.
“All of the facts are descriptive facts” is a big universal claim. Do you believe the existential claim “there are no irreducible normative facts” because of the universal one? Is a fact biconditionally descriptive?
Suppose I’m teaching someone to play chess and I show them how the pawn works. Is “the pawn moves like this” a descriptive fact? If so, what is it describing?
Does your “Nuremberg argument” (I think that’s what you called it right?) argue that it would be absurd for someone to act in accordance with the moral facts? (I.e. think they can act in ways that are impossible for them to act, would just want to act in accordance with such facts, etc).
Though what strikes me as most absurd would be accepting that one would have a moral obligation to commit paradigmatic evil acts, like torture.
Considering a reverse case, I think this point can be appreciated. (Maybe you disagree?) Consider someone who discovers that caring about the poor and giving away 30% of their money is stance-independently morally required. Suppose they do it. Suppose you put a similar case forward for me. I don’t want to give away 30% of my money. But suppose I do it anyway. Whatever absurdities we might want to bring up (I.e. am i saying we can act without motivation-though some philosophers I like accept this can be done) don’t seem as strong as the absurdity in ‘accepting’ Nuremberg arguments. By which I mean, accepting the conclusion that one would be obligated to act in such and such way (as opposed to just saying they wouldn’t do it-which I take is one of your primary targets in using this style of argument).