In this episode of Seeing Clearly, professor Michael Huemer and I run through his argument for moral realism: the thesis that there are objective moral facts knowable via intuition. We cover every other metaethical theory and show why each of them fails and how moral realism responds to the most popular objections against the view. I did my best to pressure Professor Huemer by steel manning anti-realism every step of the way.
Link to buy Michael Huemer’s book Ethical Intuitionism: https://amzn.to/4wDCTOl
1:01 — What is metaethics?
2:52 — The 5 metaethical theories
10:58 — Why are philosophers, and not linguists, talking about semantics?
13:36 — Why non-cognitivism (emotivism, prescriptivism) is wrong
19:11 — Why quasi-realism is wrong
24:09 — Why naturalism is wrong
27:49 — The Open Question argument and can we just deny it?
29:34 — Is the is/ought gap real?
33:11 — If normative facts depend entirely on descriptive facts, are they really different?
37:16 — Why subjectivism is wrong
54:04 — The Principle of Phenomenal Conservatism
56:41 — Why nihilism is wrong
58:11 — Isn’t it more intuitive to be a nihilist given a modern scientific worldview?
1:10:09 — What if someone just doesn’t have realist intuitions?
1:18:44 — Does evolution debunk morality?
1:25:42 — How could we possibly know “non-natural” moral facts? Can meditation help?
1:36:25 — If you’re wrong about morality, does anything bad actually happen?
1:39:16 — What are moral statements true *about*?
1:46:19 — Does the Form of the Good = a value attractor state?
1:48:48 — Do souls exist?
Get full access to Seeing Clearly at
cxgonzalez.substack.com/subscribe
