Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Nameless1995 t1_j0067m8 wrote

Reply to comment by contractualist in Why You Should Be Moral (answering Prichard's dilemma) by contractualist

So the argument is only aimed at skeptics who accepts the notion of "inherent value"? Not at a more radical skeptic who is skeptical of the very notion of the possibility of values being "inherent" in object in a stance-independent sense?

2

contractualist OP t1_j01ecxe wrote

You can’t have morality without values, specifically freedom and reason

1

Nameless1995 t1_j02eqdx wrote

I am not talking skeptics who denies values per se, but inherent stance-independent values. So the radical skeptic may brutely stance-dependently value reason, his-own-freedom and such but not believe that reason has inherent agent-independent value, or that freedom-as-such or even his-own-freedom has inherent value beyond the psychological contigencies of people relating to them in a "valuing" manner. Thus the radical skeptic is not sure if value is a thing or a property rather than being a process-in-act -- a "value-ing" associating with how the agent relates to a thing, concept, or a capacity.

And moreover, the skeptic may be a skeptical towards moral realism (beyond there being game-theoretically stable principles for agents to modulate their "powers" by considering trade-offs involving different valuing of different agents)

1