contractualist OP t1_j9hh3n4 wrote on February 22, 2023 at 12:24 AM

Reply to comment by internetzdude in What Morality is Not (and why it's not the Repugnant Conclusion, Utilitarianism, or Libertarianism) by contractualist

>+ objective and agent-relative:

It is better for John not to become a lawyer and pursue a career as a clarinetist. John would probably not even pass the bar exams and the profession would invariably burn him out. He doesn't have the personality for it.

Woah, this definitely sneaks in valuing well-being. If we replaced it with "challenge seeking" or "self-development", we'd have a different ruling. And how do you decide between which values are truly objective, well-being or challenge? I actually discuss this issue in my last section here (although my thoughts need some more fleshing out)

internetzdude t1_j9l0351 wrote on February 22, 2023 at 7:13 PM

My view so far is roughly speaking naturalist/pragmatic in the sense that we figure out which values are truly objective in the same way as we would figure this out about any other issue. Maybe it's more about the stance towards a specific value. We sometimes speak of specific values in strongly realist ways. Whether we're right or wrong about this is a matter of nature, and, if you want to put it in these terms, concerns value epistemology. Although I'm sympathetic with error theory as a critique, I find it overall not very credible as a statement about all value.