Submitted by contractualist t3_ziw9nv in philosophy
Nameless1995 t1_j02eqdx wrote
Reply to comment by contractualist in Why You Should Be Moral (answering Prichard's dilemma) by contractualist
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)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments