So for context I have a degree in philosophy. I even went for graduate school for philosophy for a short time. I took numerous classes on ethics both in undergrad and grad school. I never met someone who was a serious academic philosopher who makes so many assertions in a piece on ethics without citing any ethical theories, thinkers, or pieces on the topic. Even the baseline claim is from under your first subheading of “ Moral realism presupposes good and evil. It does not explain what they are, or in what sense they exist.” Like have you ever read any philosophical that supports moral realistic, because if you did you would not make such a statement. You can even google the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to see that the assertion moral realism “does not explain what good or evil is and what sense it exists” is full of shit. I think your piece asks some good questions but you’re engaging with strawman points instead of actual arguments within moral realism. It would be different if you brought up substantial counterpoints to well established ethical theory, but I see you arguing against utilitarianism in one section while conflating it with deontological ethics the next. There is no differentiation between ethical theories, you did not address meta ethical considerations, and you have not brought up any bodies of work. I don’t understand how someone with a coherent understanding of ethics cites nothing, makes assertions without pointing to any sort of body of work, and doesn’t clearly define their terms and propositions. It really feels like you took one class on basic ethics, wrote up your thoughts on your vague understanding of it, and asked some clever questions throughout. Other than that I would say you need a better understanding of ethics that actually engages with philosophical work on the subject before you suggest you have a better understanding of it than someone else.
Whether you have a degree in philosophy or not is irrelevant because you are still clueless. The reason why you never met any academic moral anti-realists is because you live in a bubble and an echo chamber. You've clearly never heard of Max Stirner, Land Independent (https://www.lanceindependent.com/archive), Nathan Cofnas, and many others.
If you are serious about your position, there you should read the essay and write a rebuttal to it. I don't need to cite clueless academics to have a rational worldview. But you wouldn't know that, because you've never had a single original thought in your entire life. So far, the only arguments you've made against morality are appeal to authority fallacies.
You claim to have knowledge in philosophy but do not cite philosophers and while acting like you know more than them. I don’t need to write an entire rebuttal to that piece because if you knew anything about philosophy you would know you didn’t really say anything new that wasn’t said in a more coherent ways before. Either way I’m not surprised someone against degrees and institutions wouldn’t really define their terms, provide counter arguments to their own arguments, and refute those arguments with precision. It’s a sloppiness that calls into question your background and your claim to have a coherent understanding of ethics above my own. Reading a few books from a few philosophers doesn’t mean you have new insights on the matter or can effectively think your way through to new groundbreaking insights. Especially if you’re not engaging with any previous works or citing anything. The fact you treat moral realism as monolithic in your earlier statements really showcases that aforementioned sloppiness. It’s okay my friend, I was young and thought I knew it all at one point from reading some books. But then I read more and talked to people who knew more than me. The good thing about philosophy is that it strives to invoke intellectual humility in those who pursue it. Could my breakdown of Huberman from an ethical standpoint be better and more thorough? Sure, but let’s not pretend for a second what you sent me means you know more about ethics than I do. It probably means you need to step back, read some more, talk to people smarter than you, and reflect on what you read and talk about. A lot of times the space you can do that is through university. If you’re against university but not doing those aforementioned things in various other ways will impede you more than help you. You’re a clever person from my perspective who has the potential to be knowledgeable but you’re getting in your own way. Please read into works dealing with moral realism before you write about it. I would be more than happy to point to some resources and help you rewrite the piece. I think you brought good counter points and questions that deserve to be fleshed out but that can only be done by actually engaging with other pieces and works.
I believe you can tell how someone will behave or how reliable their information based on other actions they take, or things said.
Just cause some guy gives great cleaning advice and is a racist, I'm not going to accept his racism in order to receive great cleaning tips.
That’s fair and you probably shouldn’t. It’s hard to divorce what the individual says from what they do.
I'm don't like Huberman either, but you don't have a coherent understanding of morality at all. Morality is an illusion. https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-case-against-moral-realism.html
So for context I have a degree in philosophy. I even went for graduate school for philosophy for a short time. I took numerous classes on ethics both in undergrad and grad school. I never met someone who was a serious academic philosopher who makes so many assertions in a piece on ethics without citing any ethical theories, thinkers, or pieces on the topic. Even the baseline claim is from under your first subheading of “ Moral realism presupposes good and evil. It does not explain what they are, or in what sense they exist.” Like have you ever read any philosophical that supports moral realistic, because if you did you would not make such a statement. You can even google the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to see that the assertion moral realism “does not explain what good or evil is and what sense it exists” is full of shit. I think your piece asks some good questions but you’re engaging with strawman points instead of actual arguments within moral realism. It would be different if you brought up substantial counterpoints to well established ethical theory, but I see you arguing against utilitarianism in one section while conflating it with deontological ethics the next. There is no differentiation between ethical theories, you did not address meta ethical considerations, and you have not brought up any bodies of work. I don’t understand how someone with a coherent understanding of ethics cites nothing, makes assertions without pointing to any sort of body of work, and doesn’t clearly define their terms and propositions. It really feels like you took one class on basic ethics, wrote up your thoughts on your vague understanding of it, and asked some clever questions throughout. Other than that I would say you need a better understanding of ethics that actually engages with philosophical work on the subject before you suggest you have a better understanding of it than someone else.
Whether you have a degree in philosophy or not is irrelevant because you are still clueless. The reason why you never met any academic moral anti-realists is because you live in a bubble and an echo chamber. You've clearly never heard of Max Stirner, Land Independent (https://www.lanceindependent.com/archive), Nathan Cofnas, and many others.
If you are serious about your position, there you should read the essay and write a rebuttal to it. I don't need to cite clueless academics to have a rational worldview. But you wouldn't know that, because you've never had a single original thought in your entire life. So far, the only arguments you've made against morality are appeal to authority fallacies.
Most academic research is fake: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2019/05/why-most-academic-research-is-fake.html, https://zerocontradictions.net/epistemology/academia-critique
You claim to have knowledge in philosophy but do not cite philosophers and while acting like you know more than them. I don’t need to write an entire rebuttal to that piece because if you knew anything about philosophy you would know you didn’t really say anything new that wasn’t said in a more coherent ways before. Either way I’m not surprised someone against degrees and institutions wouldn’t really define their terms, provide counter arguments to their own arguments, and refute those arguments with precision. It’s a sloppiness that calls into question your background and your claim to have a coherent understanding of ethics above my own. Reading a few books from a few philosophers doesn’t mean you have new insights on the matter or can effectively think your way through to new groundbreaking insights. Especially if you’re not engaging with any previous works or citing anything. The fact you treat moral realism as monolithic in your earlier statements really showcases that aforementioned sloppiness. It’s okay my friend, I was young and thought I knew it all at one point from reading some books. But then I read more and talked to people who knew more than me. The good thing about philosophy is that it strives to invoke intellectual humility in those who pursue it. Could my breakdown of Huberman from an ethical standpoint be better and more thorough? Sure, but let’s not pretend for a second what you sent me means you know more about ethics than I do. It probably means you need to step back, read some more, talk to people smarter than you, and reflect on what you read and talk about. A lot of times the space you can do that is through university. If you’re against university but not doing those aforementioned things in various other ways will impede you more than help you. You’re a clever person from my perspective who has the potential to be knowledgeable but you’re getting in your own way. Please read into works dealing with moral realism before you write about it. I would be more than happy to point to some resources and help you rewrite the piece. I think you brought good counter points and questions that deserve to be fleshed out but that can only be done by actually engaging with other pieces and works.