tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post6936053338219570327..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: A modest sceptical theism that doesn't lead to moral scepticismAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-69206607494083325852015-08-16T19:47:10.694-05:002015-08-16T19:47:10.694-05:00For what it's worth, if this is what the term ...For what it's worth, if this is what the term means, "species-relative" carries much more (correct) information, to my ear, than "incommensurable".Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-43191799930397513182015-08-14T11:52:55.773-05:002015-08-14T11:52:55.773-05:00Answer 1:
Suppose that humans should value diver...Answer 1: <br /><br />Suppose that humans should value diversity over simplicity in art while Vulcans should have the opposite valuation, but objectively diversity and simplicity in art are incommensurable. Then a human who produces promotes diversity over simplicity in art does right while a Vulcan who promotes simplicity over diversity in art also does right (imagine that they are arguing about the decorations for Starfleet Academy). <br /><br />But this incommensurability concerns <i>effects</i>. The effects--a painting exhibiting diversity vs. one exhibiting simplicity--exhibit the incommensurability. When we consider actions, we get a rational commensurability within each species. It is on balance better for the human to promote diversity than it is for the human to promote simplicity, and reversely for the Vulcan. In other words, a qualified relativism is true: but the relativism is to kinds of agents.<br /><br />If this is right, then the rightness and wrongness of an action doesn't supervene on facts about outcomes or even facts about outcomes and intentions: the kind the agent falls under is also relevant. <br /><br />Answer 2 (complementary):<br /><br />In "Divine Creative Freedom", I distinguish weak and strong incommensurability. Weak incommensurability is where there is no rational domination: in one way one option is better and in another another. Strong incommensurability is where neither option is on balance better. Your point then is that where cases of incommensurability are resolvable, they are cases of weak rather than strong incommensurability. <br /><br />But note now that a consequence of the view is that whether two options are strongly incommensurable can be species relative.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-81613226220729139322015-08-14T10:41:23.668-05:002015-08-14T10:41:23.668-05:00I like the general thrust of this argument but it ...I like the general thrust of this argument but it raises a question I've had for a long time.<br /><br />"So we can know how we should resolve cases of incommensurability when they come up for us."<br /><br />If there is a fact of the matter how cases should be resolved, then in what sense are the goods at stake really incommensurable? Wouldn't resolving the case correctly just BE commensurating the goods at stake?Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.com