Lance S. Bush
@lanceindependent.bsky.social
Moral psychologist & philosopher. I blog and I'm on YouTube/TikTok. See my academic and online work here:
https://linktr.ee/lanceindependent
https://linktr.ee/lanceindependent
What I’d like to see philosophers do is taboo the use of “intuition” when writing essays or having conversations for a while, and see how that goes. What do you end up having to do to clarify what you are saying? I suspect the answer would be very informative.
November 2, 2025 at 2:47 PM
What I’d like to see philosophers do is taboo the use of “intuition” when writing essays or having conversations for a while, and see how that goes. What do you end up having to do to clarify what you are saying? I suspect the answer would be very informative.
Hell yea I second that one.
October 20, 2025 at 5:01 PM
Hell yea I second that one.
Have you read Neil Sinclair's paper on the presumption in favor of realism? (Assuming that's what you are referring to)
October 20, 2025 at 5:01 PM
Have you read Neil Sinclair's paper on the presumption in favor of realism? (Assuming that's what you are referring to)
About what? Evolutionary debunking arguments or metaethics in general?
October 20, 2025 at 5:00 PM
About what? Evolutionary debunking arguments or metaethics in general?
I defend the indeterminacy thesis with respect to the meaning of ordinary moral claims: specifically, ordinary moral claims do not best fit a realist or antirealist analysis.
As a result, all standard metaethical positions in the realism/antirealism disputes are mistaken.
As a result, all standard metaethical positions in the realism/antirealism disputes are mistaken.
October 20, 2025 at 5:00 PM
I defend the indeterminacy thesis with respect to the meaning of ordinary moral claims: specifically, ordinary moral claims do not best fit a realist or antirealist analysis.
As a result, all standard metaethical positions in the realism/antirealism disputes are mistaken.
As a result, all standard metaethical positions in the realism/antirealism disputes are mistaken.
The notion of normative "reasons" commonly employed by analytic philosophers is meaningless, as is the notion of irreducible normativity.
As a result, standard forms of non-naturalist moral realism aren't even false; they are not even an intelligible position.
As a result, standard forms of non-naturalist moral realism aren't even false; they are not even an intelligible position.
October 20, 2025 at 4:57 PM
The notion of normative "reasons" commonly employed by analytic philosophers is meaningless, as is the notion of irreducible normativity.
As a result, standard forms of non-naturalist moral realism aren't even false; they are not even an intelligible position.
As a result, standard forms of non-naturalist moral realism aren't even false; they are not even an intelligible position.
Shokz. I recommend the Open Run Pro (I think they're on v2). They're very useful and are also good for phone calls.
October 14, 2025 at 12:53 PM
Shokz. I recommend the Open Run Pro (I think they're on v2). They're very useful and are also good for phone calls.
Also they help with my tinnitus.
October 14, 2025 at 12:52 PM
Also they help with my tinnitus.
I've had these for years and they are great. Incidentally, they also have excellent mic quality and are great for phone calls.
October 14, 2025 at 12:52 PM
I've had these for years and they are great. Incidentally, they also have excellent mic quality and are great for phone calls.
That's a good way to distinguish them. Unfortunately the term "objective" isn't consistently used that way and I see it tossed around in other ways all over the place. I wish philosophers could all agree to use at least some terms more consistently.
October 6, 2025 at 11:40 PM
That's a good way to distinguish them. Unfortunately the term "objective" isn't consistently used that way and I see it tossed around in other ways all over the place. I wish philosophers could all agree to use at least some terms more consistently.
I may have listened to quite a few of those. I mostly recall your discussions with Spencer Case.
October 6, 2025 at 5:57 PM
I may have listened to quite a few of those. I mostly recall your discussions with Spencer Case.
Some people use the terms interchangeably or don't do a great job distinguishing them, especially in the empirical literature I deal with a lot. How do you distinguish them?
October 6, 2025 at 5:53 PM
Some people use the terms interchangeably or don't do a great job distinguishing them, especially in the empirical literature I deal with a lot. How do you distinguish them?
I've seen this! I didn't know that was you!
October 6, 2025 at 5:53 PM
I've seen this! I didn't know that was you!
“If by ‘morality’ we’re talking about the topic of everyday moral language, then relativism is true..”
…they’d be correct. This would in no way mean they’re evil monsters who don’t care about others. They could say “I wish it weren’t so, but it is.”
…they’d be correct. This would in no way mean they’re evil monsters who don’t care about others. They could say “I wish it weren’t so, but it is.”
October 3, 2025 at 2:47 PM
“If by ‘morality’ we’re talking about the topic of everyday moral language, then relativism is true..”
…they’d be correct. This would in no way mean they’re evil monsters who don’t care about others. They could say “I wish it weren’t so, but it is.”
…they’d be correct. This would in no way mean they’re evil monsters who don’t care about others. They could say “I wish it weren’t so, but it is.”
If it turned out that as a result of some complicated but definitive linguistic analysis that ordinary moral language just was used in a relativistic way, and all the relativist is committed to is saying something like:
October 3, 2025 at 2:47 PM
If it turned out that as a result of some complicated but definitive linguistic analysis that ordinary moral language just was used in a relativistic way, and all the relativist is committed to is saying something like:
This makes no sense. Moral relativism is a descriptive position about what the world is like. If it’s true, it’s true.
October 3, 2025 at 2:46 PM
This makes no sense. Moral relativism is a descriptive position about what the world is like. If it’s true, it’s true.
Resubmit an article that's 500 pages and ask them if it's enough.
October 1, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Resubmit an article that's 500 pages and ask them if it's enough.
I stopped watching anything alien-related after Prometheus. Despite being a visually stunning movie, the story was so stupid and ridiculous I was appalled. The characters acted as reckless and idiotic as dumb teenagers in a satirical horror flick.
September 27, 2025 at 1:31 PM
I stopped watching anything alien-related after Prometheus. Despite being a visually stunning movie, the story was so stupid and ridiculous I was appalled. The characters acted as reckless and idiotic as dumb teenagers in a satirical horror flick.
But yea, not a good place for extended discussion. Thanks for the link, I'll go check it out.
September 26, 2025 at 3:35 PM
But yea, not a good place for extended discussion. Thanks for the link, I'll go check it out.
I mostly focus on criticizing analytic philosophers who discuss metaethics, and at least one of my objections would be how abstract and impractical it is. I'm a pragmatist, and I want philosophy to be more practical. So I may be more sympathetic to your approach than it might seem.
September 26, 2025 at 3:34 PM
I mostly focus on criticizing analytic philosophers who discuss metaethics, and at least one of my objections would be how abstract and impractical it is. I'm a pragmatist, and I want philosophy to be more practical. So I may be more sympathetic to your approach than it might seem.