Moral Discourse and the Value of Philosophy (with Ronny Fernandez)
In this episode, Spencer Greenberg speaks with Ronnie Fernandez about the utility of caring for others' experiences, differentiating beliefs from reality, and interpreting moral discourse. They explore the value of studying philosophy and how to foster systematic wisdom and rationality in the world.
Deep Dive Analysis
9 Topic Outline
Understanding Normative Hedonism and Objects of Care
Differentiating Between Wanting and Endorsing Desires
Critique of Traditional Moral Discourse (Moral Abolitionism)
The Concept of Moral Trade and Its Benefits
Does Philosophy Make Progress and How?
The Role and Limitations of Intuition in Philosophy
Justifications and Downsides of Studying Philosophy
Strategies for Creating More Systematic Wisdom and Rationality
The Importance of Improving Disagreement and Cooperation
6 Key Concepts
Normative Hedonism
This is the claim that the only things that truly matter are experiences, or 'stuff that's going on inside of people's minds.' The guest argues it's not the only valid object of care, suggesting people can care about events or states of the world independent of direct experience.
Intrinsic Values
These are things that people value for their own sake, not merely as a means to other ends. Research indicates that humans intrinsically value a wide array of things, often extending beyond just their own experiences or happiness.
Wanting vs. Endorsing
Wanting refers to a direct desire or preference. Endorsing, however, implies a meta-desire: wanting to have a particular attitude, and wanting to want to have it, potentially across multiple levels of desire, signifying a deeper, reflective alignment.
Moral Abolitionism
This perspective suggests that the common practice of moral discourse (e.g., stating 'X is wrong' or 'Y is good') is problematic. It posits that the world is unlikely to contain objective, mind-independent moral facts that make such claims strictly true or false, thus hindering productive disagreement.
Moral Trade
A concept where individuals or groups with differing values (e.g., one prioritizes animal welfare, another poverty reduction) can cooperate and exchange efforts to mutually advance their respective goals, rather than engaging in unproductive moral conflict.
Intuition Pumps
These are philosophical thought experiments designed to elicit or guide people's intuitions towards a specific philosophical conclusion or viewpoint. The guest expresses skepticism about their effectiveness as reliable evidence in philosophical arguments.
8 Questions Answered
Normative hedonism is the philosophical claim that the only things that truly matter are experiences or what's happening inside people's minds. The guest argues it's not the only valid object of care, as people can care about external events or states of the world directly.
While some argue people can only care about experiences, the guest contends that it's coherent to care about things not in people's experiences, such as an artist caring about what happens to their art after death, or wanting children to actually love you, not just believing they do.
Wanting something is a direct desire, whereas wanting to want something is a meta-desire – a desire to *have* a particular desire. This distinction highlights that one's actual preferences might differ from the preferences one endorses or wishes to have.
Moral discourse, where people make claims like 'X is wrong' or 'Y is good,' assumes there are objective, mind-independent moral facts that can be true or false. The guest argues it's unlikely the world is like this, making such discourse potentially incoherent or misleading, and hindering productive disagreement.
Philosophy does make progress, not necessarily by settling questions definitively, but by adding new concepts, arguments, and tools to the conversation. This process narrows down consistent sets of assumptions, refines views, and shifts the reasonable confidence in various positions.
While some philosophers explicitly ground knowledge in intuition, the guest generally views intuitions as potentially getting in the way of philosophical inquiry, preferring to focus on the strength of arguments rather than intuitive plausibility.
Studying philosophy can be intrinsically fun and fulfilling for those curious about fundamental questions. It also helps develop skills in analyzing arguments, making subtle distinctions, and framing interesting questions, though these skills can also be gained from other fields.
One approach involves empirical work on interventions to improve how people figure out the truth through conversation and disagreement. This could involve structured debates and training programs to help people update their beliefs more accurately after engaging with opposing viewpoints.
13 Actionable Insights
1. Distinguish Desired vs. Actual Values
Recognize the difference between what you actually care about and what you want to care about, as your true cares are not always up to you, but endorsing them is. This helps clarify your motivations and avoid self-deception.
2. Engage in Moral Trade
Instead of endlessly arguing or fighting over moral disagreements, seek opportunities for “moral trade” where parties can cooperate to achieve more of what they each want the world to be like, even if their values differ. This fosters getting along and practical benefits.
3. Question Moral Discourse’s Factual Claims
Be skeptical of moral statements (e.g., “X is wrong”) being factual claims about the world, as it’s often difficult to make sense of what such claims would mean or how they could be settled. This encourages a more nuanced understanding of moral arguments.
4. Care Beyond Direct Experience
Recognize that it is coherent and reasonable to care about things that are not directly within anyone’s conscious experience, such as the fate of an artist’s work after their death or whether your children genuinely love you. This broadens the scope of what you can value.
5. Use Evolutionary Lens for Morality
Employ an evolutionary perspective to understand morality as a coordination mechanism that promotes group cohesion, keeps preferences stable across time, and enables self-punishment for better cooperation. This provides a useful analytical framework.
6. Be Wary of Moral Discourse Distractions
Understand that moral discourse can distract you from what you actually care about, leading to sacrifices of true values (e.g., truth) in pursuit of what you think you’re supposed to care about (e.g., only experiences). This encourages self-reflection on underlying motivations.
7. Foster Widespread Cooperation
For major societal challenges like nuclear weapons or climate change, prioritize and seek widespread cooperation, as unilateral solutions are insufficient. This emphasizes collective action over individual or national efforts.
8. Strive for Consensus on Truth
Actively work towards achieving consensus on what is true about important topics, as the inability to agree on facts (e.g., climate change) makes it impossible to effectively address critical issues. This highlights the importance of shared understanding.
9. Study Philosophy for Conceptual Tools
Engage with philosophy to develop skills in thinking about arguments, making subtle distinctions, and expanding your conceptual repertoire. These skills are useful for understanding complex problems across various fields.
10. Question Intuition in Philosophy
When engaging in philosophical inquiry, consciously try to avoid letting your intuitions influence your conclusions or arguments, as they may not be reliable evidence for the nature of reality. This promotes a more rigorous and objective approach.
11. Recognize ‘Selfishness’ Semantic Traps
Be aware that overly broad definitions of “selfishness” can strip away the meaningful distinctions of altruism, leading to frustrating semantic debates. Clarify terms to engage in more productive discussions about motivation.
12. Be Wary of Philosophical Incentives
Understand that academic philosophy can incentivize arguing for initially implausible but interesting positions, which may not align with the goal of figuring out the truth. This encourages critical evaluation of arguments and their motivations.
13. Collaborate on Disagreement Research
If interested in improving collective rationality, consider collaborating on empirical work to find interventions that make people better at figuring out the truth through conversation and disagreement. Ronnie Fernandez has existing infrastructure and is open to collaborators.
6 Key Quotes
If you want to use that definition of selfishness, sure. But you've basically in that definition removed all the interesting stuff of what we mean by altruism, right?
Spencer Greenberg
I mean, I don't care about it in the present tense when I'm dead, but I care about what happens after I die, for instance.
Ronny Fernandez
I like smoking, but I don't endorse smoking is something like that. Or you could even have, you could have like more sophisticated ones. Like I'm not okay with prostitution, but I endorse being okay with prostitution, something like that.
Ronny Fernandez
I think that people who work in philosophy of language, I mean, they seem to pretty much think of themselves as empirical scientists who are building models of, you know, different fragments of natural language.
Ronny Fernandez
I think that's a really good reason to study philosophy. If you're super interested in it, and you're super curious about it, I think that's a great reason to do it, especially if you're the sort of person who's kind of been asking related questions her whole life.
Ronny Fernandez
I'm just extremely concerned that society is going to drive itself off a cliff. That essentially, we're growing powerful in the sense of having powerful technologies faster than we're growing wise, and that this basically can increasingly throw humanity into precarious situations.
Spencer Greenberg
1 Protocols
Experiment Protocol for Improving Truth-Seeking Through Disagreement
Ronny Fernandez- Start by giving participants puzzles and ask them to state the likelihood of each answer being true.
- Pair participants who initially disagree on the puzzle answers.
- Have the paired individuals engage in a conversation or debate about the puzzle.
- After the discussion, have them re-evaluate and give new probabilities to the puzzle answers.
- Measure how effectively people updated their beliefs towards the correct answer after the disagreement.
- Design and test different interventions (e.g., training programs, moderators, specific protocols) to see if they improve people's ability to find the truth through disagreement.