I've moved to Lisbon and am currently the interim CEO at a startup, more on this later. I definitely feel happier here than I ever did in Amsterdam. My job is way more fun (although also way more challenging), my social circle has exploded. The weather's lovely, and I've grown fond of the local food, though I do miss the Amsterdam's phenomenal beer scene. But perhaps it’s for the best.
I'm diving deeper into the exploration of life's meaning, especially around epistemology and metaethics. Both address the same core question: "How can I determine what's true?" Epistemology is mostly concerned with the physical world, while metaethics delves into human affairs. But as I've discovered, they aren't that different. An attempts to separate values and facts, I believe, is a significant blunder of Western philosophy.
I'd encourage you to think about your own belief system in a similar (or different) way. The main branches of Western philosophy are metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology so covering these three seems essential, but you may want to question this presupposition. Perhaps, metaphysics is not at all important? IDK. Anyway, what it is that you believe? How do you know if it’s true? Let’s reason and find out.
***
My Core Epistemological Beliefs
Complex issues require nuanced views, not mere binary beliefs. We should express confidence levels as percentages rather than just yes/no.
Achieving absolute certainty, a 100% conviction, is unrealistic. Such certainty would mean rejecting any opposing evidence outright. This stance leaves no room for open dialogue; instead, it often escalates to threats or force. Being certain without any good evidence is also wrong for the exact same reason.
There are very few exceptions to these rules. The statement “something exists” might be the sole belief I hold with 100% certainty. Arguing the opposite, that nothing exists, is untenable.
It's challenging to shift significant personal beliefs independently. Open dialogue with others can foster change, but it requires active listening and managing emotional reactions.
Gathering evidence to reinforce your beliefs is perfectly fine, it is probably the most efficient way to acquire information, but one should also not discard conflicting evidence without a really good reason.
While criticism doesn't necessitate a total shift in beliefs, it should prompt a reassessment of your confidence level.
Trusting experts is reasonable; it's impossible to grasp every detail of every topic alone. Expertise is invaluable.
Identifying genuine experts can be tricky. However, relying solely on one expert's opinion is not a good idea anyway. Instead, we must seek consensus among experts, reference comprehensive literature reviews, and prioritize large, pre-registered studies. Popular Wikipedia articles, given their open-edit nature, are mostly reliable due to rigorous oversight and corrections.
In areas lacking expert consensus, hold your beliefs but cap your confidence at 60-70%, unless you're a subject-matter expert. If you are, you can hold whatever beliefs you be aware that those who adopt your views do so at their discretion.
My Core Meta-Ethical Beliefs
1. The core aim of ethics is to foster cooperation and encourage prosocial actions. It is a mechanism of social control. This idea might be off-putting, it's essential for a functioning society.
2. Universal moral truths exist and apply across all societies, though not necessarily to every individual. For instance, theft within a group is universally condemned. No society celebrates stealing as a moral act. Theft is objectively morally wrong.
3. Recognizing theft as morally wrong doesn't mean societies are free of it. Even ethical individuals might steal under pressing circumstances. Yet, no societal leader promotes theft as a norm. Ideally, societies aspire to be theft-free and consider it moral progress when theft reduces.
4. The existence of universal moral truths doesn't imply our complete understanding of them. Unpacking and refining these truths can be a contentious process.
5. We can build upon established moral truths for ethical discussions. Slavery isn't universally condemned, yet, by reasoning from the premise "theft is wrong," we can deduce slavery is wrong too because it’s a type of theft. It’s not obvious and that is the reason it took us a while to recognise. Slavery was always wrong, we just didn’t know it.
6. There might be conflicts between universal moral principles in specific scenarios. For example, while killing is generally deemed wrong, the ethics of executing a murderer is debated. Some argue capital punishment is not just permissible but a moral obligation in itself. This is unlikely to be true. If killing is wrong in general, then it remains so in specific instances, even if we feel compelled to do that because of other considerations like preventing future killings. Moral progress is about reducing these conflicts.