Well played! You make some very clear and powerful distinctions here about Wilson's slight of hand.
Then, your final paragraphs bring a different question to the forefront, about the "why" of human flourishing. I was surprised (and delighted) when you wrote that there is a problem with treating it as an axiom... but I must have missed in your past writings where and how you make an argument for it. I actually had the impression previously that you, also, were treating human flourishing as an axiomatic given. Can you explain to me -- or point to where in your writings -- your argument for placing it as the correct moral compass? Thanks!
Thank you for this question! I actually don't think of human flourishing as the ultimate moral compass, but rather an instrumental tool for the achievement of the moral good. My argument for "knowledge maximalism" (or the pursuit of knowledge) is that I think it is an intrinsically self-improving and self-correcting moral system. This is because it is the corrective to error in general, including moral error. To the degree that we are currently ignorant of how to live morally perfect lives, growing our knowledge is a step toward moral improvement. Therefore, I think the growth of knowledge is a morally good aim. This would mean that human flourishing is currently morally good because without it there would be less growth of knowledge, and therefore less hope of future moral discovery/correction. I would love to know your thoughts on this, and your thoughts about morality and moral axioms generally.
Got it! This is very, very clear, and helps me understand much more precisely what and why you believe/argue. Setting up SOME mechanism for self-correction is so important, and I understand this logical equation. I think it is admirable that you have put in the work you've put in to understand the philosophical/ethical underpinnings, and it is inspiring that you actually have a potential solution to offer to what most of us seem to withdraw from, these days... We don't have a "validatable," universal moral system and it "looks" impossible to have one, at this stage of development... and continued progress seems like a wise path, since we MIGHT learn enough to find one.
This is NOT a "studied/deeply researched" position, and I'm not advocating it, but merely trying to answer your question (which is a good one!)... I think the most accurate way I can summarize my thoughts about morality and axioms at this point (63 years in, with wild successes and wild failures under my belt!) comes down to Covey's description of Spheres of Influence. What I believe to be within my Sphere of Control is smaller than it ever was before in my life. What I believe is within my Sphere of Influence, similarly, is smaller than it was before. And when I consider "what do I need to do / think about that most supports contributing to myself/others within my Spheres of Control and Influence," moral axioms and moral philosophy don't come up on that list any more. It seems to me now that attempting to think about the big issues/the big contexts (at least what happens in MY head when I do that) detracts more energy and time than the benefit I derive from it, and that what it takes for me to be "at my best" and contribute the most (qualitatively, if not quantitatively) has more to do with "presence" and "intuition" than it does with thinking/reading/knowledge. I definitely DON'T believe that fulfills Kant's Categorical Imperative, but it is where I find myself. And just maybe what we most need is that different people continue to think about it all differently, since we don't know which paths may yield value (whatever the probabilities say!).
Make sense? Thanks for asking, and thanks for prompting such rich discussions.
Thanks for explaining that. Yeah, I think I see where you're coming from and it makes a lot of sense. I definitely don't assume my sphere of influence as all that vast either, but luckily, I enjoy this stuff enough to think/read/write about it either way. I agree with you that it's important to have different people operating in all of these lanes, (intuition, thinking, etc.), because it is great to be exploring more "territory" as a species. It seems like you're operating in quite a few lanes, yourself, given all the thinking and reading you seem to do in addition to your presence and intuition!
Well played! You make some very clear and powerful distinctions here about Wilson's slight of hand.
Then, your final paragraphs bring a different question to the forefront, about the "why" of human flourishing. I was surprised (and delighted) when you wrote that there is a problem with treating it as an axiom... but I must have missed in your past writings where and how you make an argument for it. I actually had the impression previously that you, also, were treating human flourishing as an axiomatic given. Can you explain to me -- or point to where in your writings -- your argument for placing it as the correct moral compass? Thanks!
Thank you for this question! I actually don't think of human flourishing as the ultimate moral compass, but rather an instrumental tool for the achievement of the moral good. My argument for "knowledge maximalism" (or the pursuit of knowledge) is that I think it is an intrinsically self-improving and self-correcting moral system. This is because it is the corrective to error in general, including moral error. To the degree that we are currently ignorant of how to live morally perfect lives, growing our knowledge is a step toward moral improvement. Therefore, I think the growth of knowledge is a morally good aim. This would mean that human flourishing is currently morally good because without it there would be less growth of knowledge, and therefore less hope of future moral discovery/correction. I would love to know your thoughts on this, and your thoughts about morality and moral axioms generally.
Got it! This is very, very clear, and helps me understand much more precisely what and why you believe/argue. Setting up SOME mechanism for self-correction is so important, and I understand this logical equation. I think it is admirable that you have put in the work you've put in to understand the philosophical/ethical underpinnings, and it is inspiring that you actually have a potential solution to offer to what most of us seem to withdraw from, these days... We don't have a "validatable," universal moral system and it "looks" impossible to have one, at this stage of development... and continued progress seems like a wise path, since we MIGHT learn enough to find one.
This is NOT a "studied/deeply researched" position, and I'm not advocating it, but merely trying to answer your question (which is a good one!)... I think the most accurate way I can summarize my thoughts about morality and axioms at this point (63 years in, with wild successes and wild failures under my belt!) comes down to Covey's description of Spheres of Influence. What I believe to be within my Sphere of Control is smaller than it ever was before in my life. What I believe is within my Sphere of Influence, similarly, is smaller than it was before. And when I consider "what do I need to do / think about that most supports contributing to myself/others within my Spheres of Control and Influence," moral axioms and moral philosophy don't come up on that list any more. It seems to me now that attempting to think about the big issues/the big contexts (at least what happens in MY head when I do that) detracts more energy and time than the benefit I derive from it, and that what it takes for me to be "at my best" and contribute the most (qualitatively, if not quantitatively) has more to do with "presence" and "intuition" than it does with thinking/reading/knowledge. I definitely DON'T believe that fulfills Kant's Categorical Imperative, but it is where I find myself. And just maybe what we most need is that different people continue to think about it all differently, since we don't know which paths may yield value (whatever the probabilities say!).
Make sense? Thanks for asking, and thanks for prompting such rich discussions.
Thanks for explaining that. Yeah, I think I see where you're coming from and it makes a lot of sense. I definitely don't assume my sphere of influence as all that vast either, but luckily, I enjoy this stuff enough to think/read/write about it either way. I agree with you that it's important to have different people operating in all of these lanes, (intuition, thinking, etc.), because it is great to be exploring more "territory" as a species. It seems like you're operating in quite a few lanes, yourself, given all the thinking and reading you seem to do in addition to your presence and intuition!