Given that all sorts of counterintuitive facts emerge under rigorous analysis, the appeal to moral commonsense at the end did not convince. Both of the following may be true: "rudimentary" empathetic reasoning is a precondition for moral statements at a level of (linguistic?) complexity we expect from educated adults; and such empathetic reasoning rests on a false premise and therefore generates only false statements. This is similar to the possibility that morals may be good (for social harmony, for human welfare, etc.) while moral anti-realism may be true (a "paradox" which I in fact accept). We know that complex-yet-false beliefs are quite often the cornerstones of belief systems which have many benefits to the societies in which they take root, including the promotion of moral behavior – I'm talking about religions here. It is, then, not clear to me that Libertarian Guy is wrong with his articulation of some kind of anti-realism or nihilism, as you put it, about counterfactuals.
If counterfactuals turn out to be an error of thought, smarter heads than mine should still be able to come up with ways to give intellectual substance to the human empathetic reflex. This is a moral foundation on which contemporary liberalism has come to depend (in so striking and unprecedented a way, I want to add – this is worth pausing on, as indeed some other weird guys on Twitter have; I recall a tweet thread from about five years ago, perhaps by kantbot, on how the CIA supposedly "invented" the concept of empathy as part of broader PSYOPs against the Old Left and the traditional Right).
What did strike me as clear was that Libertarian Guy's original post contained a non sequitur.
What a surprising and thought-provoking essay.
Given that all sorts of counterintuitive facts emerge under rigorous analysis, the appeal to moral commonsense at the end did not convince. Both of the following may be true: "rudimentary" empathetic reasoning is a precondition for moral statements at a level of (linguistic?) complexity we expect from educated adults; and such empathetic reasoning rests on a false premise and therefore generates only false statements. This is similar to the possibility that morals may be good (for social harmony, for human welfare, etc.) while moral anti-realism may be true (a "paradox" which I in fact accept). We know that complex-yet-false beliefs are quite often the cornerstones of belief systems which have many benefits to the societies in which they take root, including the promotion of moral behavior – I'm talking about religions here. It is, then, not clear to me that Libertarian Guy is wrong with his articulation of some kind of anti-realism or nihilism, as you put it, about counterfactuals.
If counterfactuals turn out to be an error of thought, smarter heads than mine should still be able to come up with ways to give intellectual substance to the human empathetic reflex. This is a moral foundation on which contemporary liberalism has come to depend (in so striking and unprecedented a way, I want to add – this is worth pausing on, as indeed some other weird guys on Twitter have; I recall a tweet thread from about five years ago, perhaps by kantbot, on how the CIA supposedly "invented" the concept of empathy as part of broader PSYOPs against the Old Left and the traditional Right).
What did strike me as clear was that Libertarian Guy's original post contained a non sequitur.