davidad has said, referring to the selection of books on the Library of EA:
I want to put in a strong bid to replace Parfit’s On What Matters Volume One with Parfit’s On What Matters Volume Three. Between volumes Two and Three, Parfit had many fruitful discourses with leading moral antirealists (Gibbard, Railton, Blackburn, etc), which are partially reproduced in Volume Three, where they really start to converge on some claims and get beyond their previous talking-past-each-other. It’s truly amazing to read. Volume Three is self-contained and I think it should be considered as the best and final revision of Parfit’s ethics.[1]
Despite davidad’s endorsement, there isn’t much other discussion of volume 3 of On What Matters on the EA Forum, or, for that matter, pretty much anywhere on the internet (leaving academic reviews aside). Richard Chappell’s Moral truth without substance is the only other post I know of that discusses the book at length. Given davidad’s glowing review, this seems worth fixing.[2]
Parfit begins his discussion with the following taxonomy of metaethical positions:
If, when looking at this, your first reaction was "Parfit, the ultimate champion and advocate of moral realism, calls his view non-realist??", you’re not alone. While a closer look at the taxonomy reassures us that Parfit did believe in the existence of irreducibly normative truths, it also uncovers an important misconception I had regarding the nature of normative truths Parfit believes in.
Before reading this book, I went around telling people that the proper form of moral realism that Parfit endorsed and that anti-realists primarily need to argue against separates the following three ontological categories:
As it turns out, this is a bad strawman of Parfit's position. Parfit calls his position non-realist specifically to distinguish it from the Platonic view that asserts the existence of ontological categories beyond natural facts. Parfit claims that it is unclear what it would mean for our ontology to contain weighty categories outside of the natural, and leaves the burden of providing the explanation on the Metaphysical Non-Naturalists who assert that such categories exist. This is an important feature of Parfit's view that demands further elucidation, and I will return to it soon. First, however, we need to answer a simpler question: how does Parfit defend the existence of objective morality without asserting the existence of a normative ontological realm? To answer this, I will go through each question in the taxonomy in turn.
Consider the following situations:
In Case One, you and I are both non-fanatical supporters of the English football team. I say ‘Nothing good happened today.’ You say: ‘Not so. You’re forgetting that England won its game against Spain, so something good did happen today.’ I reply: ‘That’s true.’
In Case Two, we learn that, after some shipwreck, several people have been rescued from the icy sea. I say: ‘This is great news.’[3]
In Case One, ‘That’s true’ expresses an attitude: if a Spaniard said that England’s victory was bad, we would not consider that claim to be false. In contrast, Parfit argues, Case Two does not merely involve expressing an attitude: by saying that the successful rescue operation was a good thing, we’re saying that anyone stating the contrary would be mistaken.
A Non-Cognitivist like Ayer could reply that the contrast between Case One and Case Two is real, but both still reflect attitudes—one which is held lightly and another which is held extremely strongly. However, some Non-Cognitivists think that such strongly held attitudes are ultimately grounded in normative judgements: we want to guard our attitudes because we believe them to be good and right. For example, the Expressivist Allan Gibbard, whose views we’ll discuss in depth later on, says: “some moral truths seem so utterly clear as to be pointless to state. It’s wrong to torture people for fun.” In saying this, Gibbard doesn’t seem to take himself to be merely voicing a preference. Since Parfit focuses on engaging with Quasi-Realists like Gibbard, the Ayer-style view doesn’t receive full treatment in the book.
Parfit believes that there isn’t much space between views that accept objective morality and views akin to nihilism. He writes:
[I]f there were no such reason-involving normative truths, I and some other people would have wasted much of our lives, since we have spent many years trying to answer questions about what we mistakenly believed to be such truths.
Naturally, then, one of Parfit’s core aims in the book is to defend Objectivism about practical reasons.[4] Parfit says that these object-given normative facts give us reasons to have certain desires. They aren’t merely reasons why we have these desires; they are reasons for having these desires. Parfit further says that these reasons apply universally—any agent is subject to those reasons, though it’s possible that some agents are unable to respond to them.
Parfit also argues that the opposite view, Subjectivism, must collapse into nihilism. To Subjectivists, our reasons bottom out in our desires, but the desires themselves are not supported by reasons. Parfit makes his famous Future Tuesday Indifference argument here: if a Subjectivist encounters a man who cares about avoiding suffering every upcoming day except Tuesdays, there is nothing she can do to convince this man that he’s wrong. Parfit also makes a concealed-tautology objection: if we say that we have most reason to do what would best fulfill our informed desires, and having a reason just means being such that acting on it would fulfill our desires, then we’re effectively saying that doing what fulfills our desires would fulfill our desires. Note that Subjectivists often disagree about this collapse, though.[5]
Suppose we accept that normative truths exist and are object-given. Where do object-given reasons come from? Parfit considers the existence of normative truths quite self-evident, claiming that they come from the nature of the objects themselves. He writes:
It is a very simple truth that the nature of agony, or what it is like to be burnt or whipped, gives us a reason to want to avoid such future agony.
It is what agony is like that gives everyone a reason to avoid it. Here lies another important misconception I had about Parfit’s view. I expected he would say that the way we learn we have reason to avoid agony is through introspection, but this isn’t the case: his view requires normative truths to be necessary a priori truths. Experience of what agony feels like might be required to acquire the concepts involved in coming to know this truth, just as we might have to see collections of objects to acquire the concepts needed to infer that 1+2=3, but once we have the concepts, the normative reason itself is supposed to be grasped by rational intuition.
This position is subject to at least two objections. First, there’s the evolutionary debunking argument: our intuitive faculties were shaped by selection pressures that are insensitive to non-causal normative truths, so any correlation between our intuitions and the truths would be a miracle. I’ll discuss this argument later on. Second, we might contest that normative truths are really necessary a priori truths, instead claiming that they can be reduced to natural truths. Whether this latter objection goes through is the topic of the next subsection.
Let’s again take Parfit’s branch of the tree and assume that normative truths exist. Are some of these truths irreducibly normative? This is a good place to explain the difference between Non-Realist Cognitivism, Non-Analytical Naturalism, and Analytical Naturalism.
Analytical Naturalists say that normative claims can be restated in naturalistic terms without loss of meaning: for example, they might say that "we ought to do X" just means "X maximizes happiness". Normative truths are natural truths, and discovering what we ought to do is an empirical inquiry. Parfit's objection to this view is a descendant of G.E. Moore's open question argument. If "we ought to do X" just meant "X maximizes happiness", then "we ought to maximize happiness" would be an empty tautology, and a rational egoist who denies it would be misusing words rather than making a substantive normative claim. The disagreement between utilitarians and egoists doesn’t seem to lie in talking past each other.
Non-Analytical Naturalists respond to this problem by giving up the claim about meaning: we cannot give a naturalistic definition of "ought" or "reason" that fully captures their meaning. However, the properties that normative concepts refer to are natural properties. For example, “being right” might refer to the natural property of “being an act that minimizes suffering”.
Non-Realist Cognitivists claim that the reduction fails at both levels: like Non-Analytical Naturalists, they say that the concepts we use to state normative truths are irreducibly normative, but they go further and say that the normative truths themselves are not restatable in naturalistic terms either. To argue against Non-Analytical Naturalism, Parfit introduces the Triviality Objection[6]: the collapse into tautology that the open question argument located at the level of meaning, Parfit argues, recurs at the level of properties. “Being right is the same as being an act that minimizes suffering” can, under a Non-Analytical Naturalist view, be restated as “being an act that minimizes suffering is the same as being an act that minimizes suffering”, again yielding a tautology. No empirical inquiry could reveal what the normative truths are; normative truths are knowable only a priori.
The naturalist’s standard reply is that a posteriori identities are informative despite being identities, “heat is molecular kinetic energy” being a simple example. Parfit agrees that “heat is molecular kinetic energy” gives us substantive information despite referring to a single property in two different ways—it tells us how the property of molecular kinetic energy is related to other properties, such as those of having certain sensations, being melted, etc. Parfit then says that “being an act that minimizes suffering is the same as being right” also gives us substantive information, but that information is negative. It tells us that if some act would minimize suffering, this act could not have the different normative property of being right, since there is no such different property. By looking for that different property, we have wasted our time.
I’m not sure whether I agree with Parfit’s disanalogy here. It seems reasonable to say that by learning that there’s an identity relationship between “being an act that minimizes suffering” and “being right”, we learn how the property of being an act that minimizes suffering is related to other properties, such as being what we would choose to do after a long reflection or what we are disposed to feel guilt about failing to do. Parfit would likely object that this claim conveniently glosses over the substantive normative information, but what counts as substantive normative information is what the two sides seem to disagree over in the first place.
Importantly, Parfit allows that normative truths can be necessarily co-extensive with natural truths—that is, for some natural property N, in every possible world, exactly the acts that have N are the acts we have decisive reasons to do. This is akin to how being triangular and being trilateral are different properties: nothing in any possible world has three sides without having three angles, and yet, most of us would grant that "this figure is trilateral" and "this figure is triangular" state different facts. Furthermore, N can make acts have the different property of being right or wrong.
If Non-Realist Cognitivists and Non-Analytical Naturalists agree about what is right and wrong in every possible world, what do they still disagree about? Parfit may claim that Non-Analytical Naturalists have wasted their time from his perspective, but after all, both sides make exactly the same moral judgements. Does the disagreement, then, matter in any practical sense?
As davidad said, the book includes overviews of various fruitful discussions between Parfit and leading anti-realists, and they manage to resolve some of their biggest differences. The aforementioned disagreement between Non-Realist Cognitivists and Non-Analytical Naturalists is one of these: after substantial dialogue, Parfit and Peter Railton, an adherent of the latter view, unify important aspects of their views. Parfit also works to resolve many of his disagreements with Allan Gibbard, a Quasi-Realist Expressivist, though as we’ll see, it’s less clear whether this resolution is successful. Parfit coins this unification Another Triple Theory, following the Triple Theory of normative ethics he introduced in volume one.[7]
Railton keeps his Non-Analytical Naturalism and says that he and Parfit have different preferred dialects, even though they speak a common language. Railton prefers to state the resolution of the Triviality Objection as follows:
The concept <rightness> and the concept <minimizing suffering> have the same extension, and thus present the same extensional or ontological property, being suffering-minimizing, under different guises.
If properties are individuated coarsely, by their extensions across possible worlds, Railton's identity claim is true; if they are individuated finely, by the concepts under which we grasp them, Parfit's distinctness claim is true. This no longer looks like a serious disagreement about normative reality, instead being, as Railton says, a difference in dialects. Here, the disagreement really seems to lack any practical implications.
The reconciliation with Gibbard is similar in spirit. As part of the unification, Parfit states a view he calls Expressivist Cognitivism, which says:
[W]hen we say that some fact is a reason to act in some way, we are saying ‘Weigh this fact in favour of this act!’, and we are also claiming that, in expressing this imperative, we are getting it right.
He claims that he and Gibbard can both accept this view. It’s unclear to me whether this reconciliation goes through. Recall Gibbard’s remark that some moral truths seem too clear to be worth stating. This remark suggests that Gibbard is indeed trying to say that he is getting things right in expressing his opposition to suffering. However, Gibbard’s notion of getting things right seems to itself be an Expressivist one. He writes:
In saying that suffering matters, I am saying to care whether there is suffering. … So these two analyses of ‘matters’ are equivalent if saying we have decisive reason to care about suffering amounts to saying to care about suffering. … So in saying there is decisive reason to care, I am saying to weigh the considerations in a way that settles how to feel in favor of caring.
By this account, Gibbard’s caring seems to bottom out in attitudes, while I’d expect Parfit to say that the claim of getting things right has to bottom out in object-given reasons. On the other hand, Parfit himself considered his disagreements with Gibbard largely resolved upon reading the commentary from which the above excerpts have been taken. I remain unsure about whether Parfit is correct or not.
Sharon Street rejects normative realism for epistemological reasons: she claims that our moral intuitions have been shaped by evolutionary pressures, and we should thus expect them to track what was reproductively advantageous to our ancestors, rather than what is true. The causes of our moral intuitions are wholly unrelated to their truth. Street further believes that similar arguments apply to any naturalistic assumptions about the causes of our normative beliefs, not only evolutionary ones.
Parfit has two responses to Street. First, Parfit argues that the debunking argument undermines itself. Our epistemic beliefs are also produced by evolved mental faculties, and Street is relying on these to state her argument. Second, and more important, Parfit claims that it’s implausible that all of our normative beliefs were greatly influenced by natural selection. One example is the belief that everyone’s well-being matters equally—this belief couldn’t possibly have been reproductively or socially advantageous.
I’m not sure whether I agree with Parfit here. It is true that the belief that everyone’s well-being matters equally isn’t evolutionarily advantageous, but it could still fall out of evolutionary forces. One could claim that evolution advantaged a drive to avoid suffering in order for us to avoid life-threatening situations, and that separately, evolution advantaged beliefs that are consistent and generalizable, since such beliefs are more likely to lead to an accurate view of our environment. Combining these two evolutionary tendencies, we land on the belief that everyone’s well-being matters equally. On the other hand, if one accepts the common-sense position that all truths must be consistent and generalizable, then this objection effectively says that evolution advantages truth-seeking, which would make it natural to expect that we’d arrive at true beliefs in numerous domains, including the normative.
Street could reply here that what gets generalized is determined by evolution: universalized egoism and nihilism would also be consistent and generalizable, but lead to lower fitness. Could the realist instead insist that tracking normative truths was itself adaptive? On first impression, no: Parfit claims that normative truths are causally inert, and selection can’t respond to causally inert properties. Parfit can say, though, that through the necessary co-extension between normative and natural properties, beliefs formed by tracking the natural property are automatically reliable about normative truths. The co-extension claim itself, though, is another truth that is knowable only through rational intuition, and Street would presumably question the reliability of that claim.
We are now ready to return to the question of whether it’s possible for irreducibly normative truths to exist without having any ontological weight. Parfit's critics say that one can't have a free lunch: either you accept that there are no irreducibly normative facts, or you accept that there are, as Mackie put it, "curious metaphysical objects like Plato’s forms, which are entities of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the Universe".
Is Parfit justified in speaking of truths that don't have a place in our ontologies? To answer this question, I will take a detour and discuss volume 2 of On What Matters, which is where Parfit covers this question more extensively. Parfit begins by discussing the existence of numbers and similar abstract entities, which, though different from normative reasons, face similar objections to their existence. We can ask:
Do numbers really exist in the fundamental, ontological sense, though they do not exist in space or time?
Platonists would say yes, nominalists no. Parfit instead endorses the No Clear Question View: this problem is too unclear to even have an answer. He then says, however, that we can still talk of numbers in a non-ontological way. We can say that claims about numbers can be in a strong sense true, and that’s all we need to know to reason about them, without descending into difficult considerations about ontological implications.
What sort of truth are we talking about if not ontological truth? Parfit indicates that his view requires mathematical and normative claims to be true in a fundamental sense, meaning:
These are quite strong conditions. I don’t know enough metaphysics to adjudicate whether we can justifiably say that belief in such truths doesn’t have ontological side effects, but I’ll nevertheless try to explore some arguments for and against that in the rest of this section.
Quine would have none of Parfit’s position and say that any truths with such properties would automatically get a place in our ontologies. On Quine’s view, what our true claims quantify over determines our ontology. Parfit, by my read, says that this is a category error: truths aren’t the kind of entity about which we should ask whether they exist or are real in an ontological sense. Consider the following statement:
It might have been true that nothing ever existed: no living beings, no stars, no atoms, not even space or time.
One might argue against this:
It could not have been true that nothing ever existed. If that had been true, there would have been the truth that nothing existed.
This doesn’t seem like a reasonable counterexample. Our ontology reflects what’s out there in the universe, and when there’s no universe, there’s also no ontology. We can say that, if the statement above had been true, then there would have been the truth that nothing ever existed, but in saying so, we’re using the phrase ‘would have been’ in a non-ontological sense.
Quine’s reply here would be that this objection misses the point. Truths indeed aren’t the objects of our ontologies; they quantify over the objects of our ontologies. If our best scientific theories say that numbers and normative truths exist, then both numbers and normative truths belong to our ontologies. The empty-world statement from above indeed doesn’t quantify over anything, and a Quinean might accept that this claim doesn’t have ontological weight, but this doesn’t imply anything about normative claims, which do quantify over something.
Parfit, as far as I know, doesn’t fully answer this objection, but we can make a guess about what his reply would be. In Being Realistic About Reasons, Parfit’s close friend Tim Scanlon argues for a Carnapian domain-internal view of truth. This view says that each domain comes with its own internal standards for settling its questions, and it doesn’t make sense to ask “granted, arithmetic proves that there is a prime number between two and four, but do numbers really fundamentally exist?”. There’s no single, ontologically loaded sense of 'there is' that every domain's existence claims must answer to.
Modern Quineans, like Theodore Sider, would say that some meanings of ‘there is’ carve reality at its joints better than others, and we just need to find the joint-carving quantifier that does this job the best. Once we’ve found one, the question “do numbers and reasons really exist?” becomes perfectly clear—it asks whether numbers and reasons exist according to this privileged quantifier.
It would be nice if moral realism and moral internalism are both true, and a viable alignment strategy is "have the AI think about things for a bit".
You didn’t think I’d write a post where I don’t mention AI at all, did you? Objective morality is sometimes invoked in debates over the future of AI: some claim that if morality is objective, AIs will independently discover that morality, making the alignment problem much easier. davidad echoes this kind of sentiment here. Others invoke objective morality as a justification for successionism: whatever objective morality compels us to maximize, AIs can eventually maximize that thing better and on a larger scale than we can. Does Parfit have anything to say on these matters?
As discussed before, Parfit is an Objectivist. This view can be understood in at least two ways, articulated nicely in Wei Dai's Six Plausible Meta-Ethical Alternatives:
1. Most intelligent beings in the multiverse share similar preferences. This came about because there are facts about what preferences one should have, just like there exist facts about what decision theory one should use or what prior one should have, and species that manage to build intergalactic civilizations (or the equivalent in other universes) tend to discover all of these facts. There are occasional paperclip maximizers that arise, but they are a relatively minor presence or tend to be taken over by more sophisticated minds.
2. Facts about what everyone should value exist, and most intelligent beings have a part of their mind that can discover moral facts and find them motivating, but those parts don't have full control over their actions. These beings eventually build or become rational agents with values that represent compromises between different parts of their minds, so most intelligent beings end up having shared moral values along with idiosyncratic values.[8]
I’m uncertain about which of these views Parfit would endorse. It’s unfortunate that Parfit wrote the book in the 2000s rather than 2020s—had it been written in this decade, the existence of LLMs would have made the discussion of idealized rational agents and the existence of objective value in non-humans mandatory subjects in a book about metaethics. Alas, Parfit didn’t discuss these subjects directly, and we’ll have to infer what we can from what we have.
Parfit does not claim that normative truths can motivate everyone to behave ethically. When Simon Blackburn and Bernard Williams attack Parfit’s position by saying that there cannot be object-given reasons because we don’t observe any reasons that necessarily influence everyone, Parfit responds as follows: it can still matter greatly whether people act wrongly, even if the wrongness of these acts won’t do anything to these people. Psychopaths won’t be cured when they discover objective morality, but this doesn’t reduce the intrinsic badness of their actions. However, in this discussion, Parfit doesn’t make any claims about idealized rational agents. By my read, Parfit would count anyone who doesn’t accept or fails to respond to normative truths as irrational—that’s precisely what makes the Future Tuesday Indifference argument an example of irrationality to him. However, this just builds responsiveness to reasons into the definition of rationality. We would be better off asking whether any epistemically rational agent would come to believe normative truths.
There is some indication that Parfit thinks they would. Parfit assigned massive importance to convergence among smart people: he considered cases where people don’t converge even after extensive dialogue to be strong evidence against moral realism. This, presumably, is the chief motivation behind his spending so much of volumes 2 and 3 of On What Matters on reconciling disagreements between himself and other philosophers. This view doesn’t rule out paperclip maximizers—a mind superhuman at instrumental reasoning may still have trapped priors and be unwilling to ever entertain certain truths—, but the feasibility of paperclip maximizers is granted even under Wei Dai’s first alternative.
On the other hand, Parfit's normative truths are causally inert. Presumably, an ideal Bayesian reasoner could satisfy both responsiveness to evidence and logical coherence without representing normative hypotheses in its hypothesis space at all, as nothing in its evidence stream or its priors has to point at them. One might counter, though, that even if this holds for an ideal Bayesian reasoner, any AI trained by humans would be pushed into contact with normative truths since human normative discourse is abundant in its training data, just as humans are pushed into contact with necessary a priori mathematical truths by trying to model the world.
In any case, I don’t think Parfit’s position offers support to either the claim that AIs will self-discover morality or the claim that moral realism justifies successionism. "Aligned-by-default via moral realism" requires at least three components: (1) moral realism is true; (2) moral truths are discoverable by sufficiently capable minds; and (3) discovering them motivates acting on them (internalism). Parfit spends the book discussing (1) without touching (2) or (3) much. One could argue that the causal inertness of Parfit’s normative truths counts against (2), and through the discussion of psychopaths, Parfit admits that (3) doesn’t apply to everyone, at least when speaking of human-level agents. Parfit’s flavor of moral realism thus also fails to support the successionist claim: we cannot trust AIs with discovering the true morality themselves, and we ourselves, of course, still deeply disagree about what we want superintelligent AIs to do.
I started reading the book from an anti-realist vantage point. Did I come any closer to Parfit's position by the end? Are we climbing the same metaethical mountain?
In a sense, I’m closer to Parfit’s position now than I was when I started reading the book, as two important misconceptions I had about his view have been corrected. It’s possible that if Parfit were still around to respond to my post, our views would further converge. We’re also quite close together in our practical beliefs: for example, I believe that ensuring humanity has a good future matters immensely, that factory farming is an evil practice, and that the rich should donate a non-trivial slice of their income to the poor.
On the other hand, I don’t feel like Parfit’s positive case for objective morality was that strong. The book makes a strong effort to show that we can be moral realists without accepting uncomfortable implications like Platonism, but less of an effort to convince Subjectivists that they’re wrong. It is possible, though, that Parfit made that case extensively in volumes 1 and 2, which I mostly haven’t read.
There is a part of me that wants morality to be objective. Whenever someone says that they know they're doing something they consider morally bad but are doing it anyway, I feel a strong urge to shout "Please respond appropriately to your obvious object-given obligations!" I’m also very sympathetic to Bertrand Russell’s position: “I cannot see how to refute the argument for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself quite incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I dislike it.” However, as Gibbard says: “We have to distinguish reasons to believe our normative inquiries not to be hopeless from reasons to want to believe them not to be hopeless.” While I remain open to being convinced by a strong positive case, I agree with Gibbard. The mere fact that I would like to be right in debates over morality doesn’t imply anything about the existence of normative truths. Parfit, with his statements about how his life would have been wasted if there were no normative truths, seems to fall prey to the failure mode Gibbard describes, at least to some extent.
I wouldn’t consider Parfit’s life wasted either way. He made immense contributions to deconfusing us about what we value and why. As Eliezer says:
So the most important line of retreat is the one given in The Moral Void: If your metaethic stops telling you to save lives, you can just drag the kid off the train tracks anyway. To paraphrase Piers Anthony, only those who have moralities worry over whether or not they have them. If your metaethic tells you to kill people, why should you even listen? Maybe that which you would do even if there were no morality, is your morality.[9]
Whether your morality is derived from a robust metaethic or simply from what you would do even if there were no morality, I hope that the closing paragraphs of On What Matters will resonate with all of you. I will leave them here to finish off the post.
Life can be wonderful as well as terrible, and we shall increasingly have the power to make life good. Since human history may be only just beginning, we can expect that future humans, or supra-humans, may achieve some great goods that we cannot now even imagine. In Nietzsche’s words, there has never been such a new dawn and clear horizon, and such an open sea.
If we are the only rational beings in the Universe, as some recent evidence suggests, it matters even more whether we shall have descendants or successors during the billions of years in which that would be possible. Some of our successors might live lives and create worlds that, though failing to justify past suffering, would have given us all, including those who suffered most, reasons to be glad that the Universe exists.
Thanks to Rohan Subramani, Savannah Harlan, Evgenii Opryshko, and several others for conversations that motivated me to read the book and write this review. Thanks to Claude Fable 5 for help and feedback on the review.
Note that the positive review doesn’t imply that davidad’s moral realism is derived from Parfit. In Dialogue: Is there a Natural Abstraction of Good?, he appears to defend a Metaphysical Non-Naturalist position, as opposed to Parfit’s Non-Realist Cognitivism, and cites several other influences without mentioning Parfit.
To be precise, I’ll be reviewing the first three parts of the book, all of which discuss metaethics. The fourth part discusses object-level ethics, attempting to reconcile differences between act consequentialism and common-sense morality, and is also interesting, but is somewhat detached from the rest of the book and not my main interest here.
Case One and Case Two have been adapted from On What Matters volume 3, pages 171-172.
Parfit defines Objectivism as follows: “[W]e all have reasons to have certain desires or aims, and to act in ways that might achieve these aims. These reasons are object-given in the sense that they are provided by certain facts about the objects of these desires or aims—or what we might want or try to achieve. These reason-giving facts are about what makes these objects or aims in themselves good or worth achieving. We have such reasons whatever we actually want, or would in fact want after informed deliberation.” The opposite view is Subjectivism, which he states as follows: “[W]e have no such object-given reasons. Practical reasons are all subject-given in the sense that these reasons depend on certain facts, not about the objects of our desires or aims, but about us. These reasons are given by facts about which acts would fulfil our actual present desires, or the desires or aims that we would now have after informed and procedurally rational deliberation.”
Bernard Williams, despite being a Subjectivist who vehemently disagreed with Parfit’s efforts to find an objective grounding for morality, certainly wouldn’t have called himself a nihilist. Gary Drescher is another who would disagree, but dissecting his position will have to wait until I review his Good and Real.
Note that Parfit regrets the choice of the word “triviality” when naming this objection: there would be nothing trivial in there being no irreducibly normative truths.
The Triple Theory of normative ethics goes as follows: an act is wrong just when such acts are disallowed by some principle that is
With this, Parfit claims to have unified rule consequentialism, Kantian deontology, and Scanlonian contractualism.
The post contains four additional possible alternatives, which I encourage you to read but won’t list here in the interest of brevity.
See also Steven Byrnes’s Dentin’s prayer.
