Some of my controversial views on philosophy

Like I just did in the Politics forum, here are some of my controversial philosophical views. Would love to chat about any of them! Also check out my AMA.

• Epistemic nihilism is false. I’m not sure its truth can actually be evaluated, but at minimum, it’s useless and unproductive. 
  
• God almost certainly doesn’t exist. 
  
• Highly uncertain about this, but free will probably exists. 
  
• Moral realism is probably true, though highly uncertain. 
  
• Common sense morality is, all things considered, a pretty good metric. 
  
• The best approximation of a good moral theory that I can think of is preference utilitarianism, albeit somewhat skittish, accounting for moral uncertainty with either expected choice-worthiness or a parliamentary model, and incorporating some unusually strong common sense intuitions. 
  
• Creating new happy lives is a good thing, though not as good as making existing people happy. Creating new bad lives is a bad thing (though not as bad, other things equal, as inflicting suffering on existing people). 
  
• Countries don’t have very large special obligations to their own citizens. They should prioritize their citizens a bit more than non-citizens, for pragmatic reasons, but policy should, in general, focus a lot more on the rest of the world. 
  
• Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need. 
  
• We should care, morally, as much about future generations as the current one. Of course, for practical reasons, it often makes sense to prioritize the interests of people alive today, but the moral worth of someone 300 or 3000 years from now is no different than the moral worth of someone alive today.
  

I would disagree with you on objective morality being uncertain and also on the idea that god almost certainly doesn't exist. 

 

--> @Ehyeh

I would disagree with you on objective morality being uncertain and also on the idea that god almost certainly doesn't exist. 

I concur.

Epistemic nihilism is false. I’m not sure its truth can actually be evaluated, but at minimum, it’s useless and unproductive.

God almost certainly doesn’t exist.

Highly uncertain about this, but free will probably exists. 

Moral realism is probably true, though highly uncertain.

Common sense morality is, all things considered, a pretty good metric.

The best approximation of a good moral theory that I can think of is preference utilitarianism, albeit somewhat skittish, accounting for moral uncertainty with either expected choice-worthiness or a parliamentary model, and incorporating some unusually strong common sense intuitions. 

Creating new happy lives is a good thing, though not as good as making existing people happy. Creating new bad lives is a bad thing (though not as bad, other things equal, as inflicting suffering on existing people). 

Countries don’t have very large special obligations to their own citizens. They should prioritize their citizens a bit more than non-citizens, for pragmatic reasons, but policy should, in general, focus a lot more on the rest of the world.

Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need. 

We should care, morally, as much about future generations as the current one. Of course, for practical reasons, it often makes sense to prioritize the interests of people alive today, but the moral worth of someone 300 or 3000 years from now is no different than the moral worth of someone alive today.

Some definitions of god can be ruled out due to lack of predicted evidence. Any god, as in some kind of non-corporeal being of great power, has no theoretical mechanism of existence and therefore no probability analysis can be done.

To be ultra technical what I would say is that the idea of a god is fully explained by human capacity for self-delusion and that there is no better reason to believe in a god than elves. Since there are many more things that can be imagined than actually exist (within scope) it is almost certain that something which has no supporting evidence beyond assertion does not exist.

Free will is actually poorly defined. I've drilled into it a couple times with people. Some people realize they don't actually know what they mean, others go on to essentially define free will as true randomness.

Problem is true randomness doesn't give you warm fuzzies when you really think about it.

Disagree: The best moral theory is an objective one based on deduction. Such a theory does exist and I have yet to see it debunked.

What does that say about abortion?

The possibility of a person is not a person, but the values of most people are already instinctively aligned with the desire to ensure their descendants have it good.

• It’s possible to value future generations without valuing potential lives (i.e., the distinction between making people who will exist happy, and allowing people a chance at existence). 
  
• Having an abortion doesn’t necessarily shut happy lives out of existence. Lots of people who have abortions have kids with good lives later in life, but wouldn’t have had those kids if they hadn’t been allowed access to abortion. Also, any given increase in population potentially reduces the number of kids other people have (e.g., if a kid is adopted by foster parents, those parents might not have kids of their own). 
  
• Even if I thought having a kid with a good life was morally praiseworthy, I value bodily autonomy too much. It’s similar to me thinking donating a kidney is good, but it would be insane for governments to mandate that everyone donates a kidney while still alive. 

:56AM

--> @Tejretics

I would disagree with you on objective morality being uncertain and also on the idea that god almost certainly doesn't exist.

• Epistemic nihilism is false. I’m not sure its truth can actually be evaluated, but at minimum, it’s useless and unproductive. 
  

• God almost certainly doesn’t exist. 
  

• Highly uncertain about this, but free will probably exists. 
  

• Moral realism is probably true, though highly uncertain. 
  

• The best approximation of a good moral theory that I can think of is preference utilitarianism, albeit somewhat skittish, accounting for moral uncertainty with either expected choice-worthiness or a parliamentary model, and incorporating some unusually strong common sense intuitions. 
  

• Creating new happy lives is a good thing, though not as good as making existing people happy. Creating new bad lives is a bad thing (though not as bad, other things equal, as inflicting suffering on existing people). 
  

• Countries don’t have very large special obligations to their own citizens. They should prioritize their citizens a bit more than non-citizens, for pragmatic reasons, but policy should, in general, focus a lot more on the rest of the world. 
  

• Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need. 
  

• We should care, morally, as much about future generations as the current one. Of course, for practical reasons, it often makes sense to prioritize the interests of people alive today, but the moral worth of someone 300 or 3000 years from now is no different than the moral worth of someone alive today.
  

--> @Tejretics

Like I just did in the Politics forum, here are some of my controversial philosophical views. Would love to chat about any of them! Also check out my AMA.

• Epistemic nihilism is false. I’m not sure its truth can actually be evaluated, but at minimum, it’s useless and unproductive. 
  
• God almost certainly doesn’t exist. 
  
• Highly uncertain about this, but free will probably exists. 
  
• Moral realism is probably true, though highly uncertain. 
  
• Common sense morality is, all things considered, a pretty good metric. 
  
• The best approximation of a good moral theory that I can think of is preference utilitarianism, albeit somewhat skittish, accounting for moral uncertainty with either expected choice-worthiness or a parliamentary model, and incorporating some unusually strong common sense intuitions. 
  
• Creating new happy lives is a good thing, though not as good as making existing people happy. Creating new bad lives is a bad thing (though not as bad, other things equal, as inflicting suffering on existing people). 
  
• Countries don’t have very large special obligations to their own citizens. They should prioritize their citizens a bit more than non-citizens, for pragmatic reasons, but policy should, in general, focus a lot more on the rest of the world. 
  
• Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need. 
  
• We should care, morally, as much about future generations as the current one. Of course, for practical reasons, it often makes sense to prioritize the interests of people alive today, but the moral worth of someone 300 or 3000 years from now is no different than the moral worth of someone alive today.
  

Your profile says you studied math and economics. None of the views you listed are covered by your education.

Your profile says you studied math and economics. None of the views you listed are covered by your education.

--> @Shila

Your profile says you studied math and economics. None of the views you listed are covered by your education.

Formally studying some topics does not mean you cannot informally study other topics. Look at Bill Nye as an example. Bill Nye hosted a science education program, continued to work in various ways to educate the public in science, etc., but what he formally studied was engineering. Does this mean Bill Nye is uneducated in science? Not at all. He studied science beyond just his formal education in it because he was passionate, the same can be said of many people with many fields of interest. You do not need to have a formal education in something to be knowledgeable in it (hence why many academic journals do accept papers written by people without a formal education in the field, so long as the paper meets the standard for publication).

--> @Tejretics

The only one I would stand up and fight about is me having a moral obligation to help other people in need. Its to vague. There are many people I would just let die where they stand for numerous different reasons.  For instance I would not lift one finger to help a pedophile. They need to die the most slow agonizing death imaginable. 

--> @Tejretics

Philosophy is either common sense or overthink padded out with a lot of hiss.

Nothing in your profile suggests you are qualified to comment on philosophy.

--> @Shila

Nothing in your profile suggests you are qualified to comment on philosophy.

Nothing in your profile suggests you are qualified to comment on if people are qualified for things or not.

--> @Shila

But it does say "and more", and so using the Schrödinger defense, I both am and am not qualified on any subject not listed until my qualifications are observed. You, on the other hand, have nothing filled out, which means that you have no indication you are qualified in anything.

--> @Novice_II

I think God is provable through ones own self consciousness. As an extension of this, i believe morality is objective and Mortem and i can prove it.  Mortem or I plan on maybe opening up a god debate in the future on the matter. You should read into menos paradox. 

Disagree here. I remember being quite the defender of this view on DDO (when I went by SNP1), but I no longer feel it is a justified position. I feel as if too much of the debate has been centered on atheism vs monotheism, but the moment you through polytheism into the discussion it changes things.

Agreed, but I am curious on if you are a compatibilist or hold to more of a libertarian free will? While I do think compatibilism is easier to support, I do have a lot of sympathies for libertarian free will. Our intuitions just scream that some extent of libertarian free will is true.

I tend to think that Aristotelian Virtue Ethics is one of (if not the) best moral theories.

This is where I disagree and think that you have some conflict in your points. if you assign a future person as having as much moral value as a present person, then how do you justify the view that "Creating new happy lives is a good thing, though not as good as making existing people happy. Creating new bad lives is a bad thing (though not as bad, other things equal, as inflicting suffering on existing people)"? I think future people certainly have moral worth, and we should act to look after future generations, but does that give it equal weight to people here today? I do not think so. Future people do not exist (yet) while present people do. I think more moral value is given to things and people that exist than things and people that do not (similar logic as to why theft, murder, etc. is wrong but playing GTA is alright).

• Thought experiments. My favorite one, adapted from Derek Parfit, is: if I drop a glass bottle in a woods, that would be irresponsible regardless of whether a child that injures themselves on it gets the injury  tomorrow, 100 years, or 500 years from now. Similarly, having a positive rate of pure time preference would mean -- at some point in the future -- the survival of humanity ends up less important than, say, me enjoying a pizza right now. 
  
• According to B theories of time, people in the future do exist right now, because time is just an extension of space -- which is likely true if you take special relativity seriously. In that sense, treating future generations worse is morally equivalent to treating people who’re far away from you worse, and I don’t find that a just conclusion. 
  
• It seems like it’s discrimination against an immutable characteristic. I don’t think you should be disadvantaged just because of when you were born, a characteristic you don’t choose, in decisions made by people in the past. 

I’m distinguishing between creating future lives and making future people (who, according to B-theories of time, exist right now) happy. I place more of a weight on the former, and the latter. 

I think there’s many good arguments for why we should value future people equally, including:

• Thought experiments. My favorite one, adapted from Derek Parfit, is: if I drop a glass bottle in a woods, that would be irresponsible regardless of whether a child that injures themselves on it gets the injury  tomorrow, 100 years, or 500 years from now. Similarly, having a positive rate of pure time preference would mean -- at some point in the future -- the survival of humanity ends up less important than, say, me enjoying a pizza right now. 
  
• According to B theories of time, people in the future do exist right now, because time is just an extension of space -- which is likely true if you take special relativity seriously. In that sense, treating future generations worse is morally equivalent to treating people who’re far away from you worse, and I don’t find that a just conclusion. 
  
• It seems like it’s discrimination against an immutable characteristic. I don’t think you should be disadvantaged just because of when you were born, a characteristic you don’t choose, in decisions made by people in the past. 
  

Hard to understand why  you gave up Hinduism to entertain B Theories.

All your questions and doubts can be answered by Karma. 

--> @Shila

Hard to understand why  you gave up Hinduism to entertain B Theories.

All your questions and doubts can be answered by Karma. 

lmao