I think you're overplaying the difference here, because there's a category difference. Your point is about psychology, while the realist's point isn't.
Let me first state that moral non-realism is fake and gay. Given that it's in the lion's nature to eat antelopes, a lion that consistently does this is objectively better than some sickly lion that can't and has to eat the leftovers of his betters. "B-but maybe the strong lion isn't objectively better, it's a s-social construct" is the wordcel bullshitter move. We instinctively like the strong lion (horse) better because it IS better. To the extent we like the weak one, it's because we feel pity because we recognize its inferiority.
(And yes, moral intuitions might differ, but a lot of realists don't rely on intuitions at all.)
However, that's still pretty abstract and doesn't automatically translate into psychology or social organization. But it should be said that Aristotle is likely the guy that made the most efforts to translate his moral framework into some sort of psychology.
And that's why I think it doesn't enter into conflict with your game-theoretic honor framework all that much. Given that human nature truly work as you describe, then we could say that human society truly should be organized as you described. You're already making claims about human nature, which you likely think are true, and deriving consequences from them. It's already pretty close to the "natural law" method.
All that said, you're right that there's a tension between the very general nature of the realist framework and the very embedded and particular duties and interests of any actual agent. But that doesn't mean that it's only for preference manipulation; I think it's also very useful to give us a shared grammar to partake in the very talks and negotiations you're proposing.
Great piece. I’m not a moral realist, but I think it’s pretty firmly embedded in human psychology and most people can’t cope with any ethical framework in which morality isn’t metaphysically and axiomatically true. Lots of guillotining required! I think compromise between conflicting moral claims ultimately produces many of your same ends regardless, if perhaps less smoothly.
Walt, you're a pretty clever gent, but no. Honor is a species of virtue, virtue is transcendental, transcendentals are the creature of metaphysics, one's "metaphysical dream of the world" is the highest cause of all. Next stop? Get ready! God. Who is pure act and being. Being and becoming. Aristotle and Aquinas and a bunch of others) are way ahead of you. Still, what you have written gives me hope for your beautiful soul.
So it has always been. That is judged by a standard. There is no pure praxis that guarantees outcomes that, then, can claim moral equivalency or virtual supremacy. I think this essay is a marvelous swan-dive into an empty pool. All that, just so you can live the way you want and call it victory? Yeah, not buying it.
This argument has a problem. If morality is a fake flex, why is there a moral imperative to demonstrate true motives? By your own logic that itself is a fake flex. But then again, maybe you know this. You know I know you know I know this kind of post maybe. Hmm.
I think you're overplaying the difference here, because there's a category difference. Your point is about psychology, while the realist's point isn't.
Let me first state that moral non-realism is fake and gay. Given that it's in the lion's nature to eat antelopes, a lion that consistently does this is objectively better than some sickly lion that can't and has to eat the leftovers of his betters. "B-but maybe the strong lion isn't objectively better, it's a s-social construct" is the wordcel bullshitter move. We instinctively like the strong lion (horse) better because it IS better. To the extent we like the weak one, it's because we feel pity because we recognize its inferiority.
(And yes, moral intuitions might differ, but a lot of realists don't rely on intuitions at all.)
However, that's still pretty abstract and doesn't automatically translate into psychology or social organization. But it should be said that Aristotle is likely the guy that made the most efforts to translate his moral framework into some sort of psychology.
And that's why I think it doesn't enter into conflict with your game-theoretic honor framework all that much. Given that human nature truly work as you describe, then we could say that human society truly should be organized as you described. You're already making claims about human nature, which you likely think are true, and deriving consequences from them. It's already pretty close to the "natural law" method.
All that said, you're right that there's a tension between the very general nature of the realist framework and the very embedded and particular duties and interests of any actual agent. But that doesn't mean that it's only for preference manipulation; I think it's also very useful to give us a shared grammar to partake in the very talks and negotiations you're proposing.
Cool but if moralfagging gets guys pussy why shouldnt they do it
Great piece. I’m not a moral realist, but I think it’s pretty firmly embedded in human psychology and most people can’t cope with any ethical framework in which morality isn’t metaphysically and axiomatically true. Lots of guillotining required! I think compromise between conflicting moral claims ultimately produces many of your same ends regardless, if perhaps less smoothly.
Walt, you're a pretty clever gent, but no. Honor is a species of virtue, virtue is transcendental, transcendentals are the creature of metaphysics, one's "metaphysical dream of the world" is the highest cause of all. Next stop? Get ready! God. Who is pure act and being. Being and becoming. Aristotle and Aquinas and a bunch of others) are way ahead of you. Still, what you have written gives me hope for your beautiful soul.
In this context, "honor" is meant as something closer to reputation.
So it has always been. That is judged by a standard. There is no pure praxis that guarantees outcomes that, then, can claim moral equivalency or virtual supremacy. I think this essay is a marvelous swan-dive into an empty pool. All that, just so you can live the way you want and call it victory? Yeah, not buying it.
This argument has a problem. If morality is a fake flex, why is there a moral imperative to demonstrate true motives? By your own logic that itself is a fake flex. But then again, maybe you know this. You know I know you know I know this kind of post maybe. Hmm.
because it’s adaptive
there’s no normative content