I've been putting this post off for many months, but I think it's time that I finally wrote it. The idea behind this entry, and hopefully future entries, is to capture a snapshot of my current philosophical thoughts about the world so that in the future I may periodically reflect upon how my beliefs have changed. This post will probably be shorter than a baseline exposition ought to be, but I'm too lazy to put in the time and mental energy required for a comprehensive treatment.
On the topic that I would loosely describe as metaphysics, I can make a couple of clear statements about my beliefs. I fall firmly in the
naturalist camp, in that I believe that the natural world is the only one that exists - i.e., there are no supernatural or spiritual entities. It obviously follows, then, that I am an
atheist. If pressed, I might make
agnostic noises about how I don't think we can truly know if anything exists outside the natural universe, but in casual conversation the operative position is the lack of a belief in supernatural entities.
One consequence of my naturalist view is that I am a
determinist - i.e., I believe that the future is determined by the past. However, when it comes to free will, I don't know whether to describe my position as a
hard determinist (who would basically say that free will does not exist because events are deterministic) or a
compatibilist (who would say that a belief in free will is compatible with determinism). I feel like both positions are plausible, and that in some ways hard determinists and compatibilists are talking past each other. I think it is useful to talk of free will in a common sense in reference to choices that are not externally forced (i.e., freedom of action), but I don't think choices can in a deep sense be otherwise than has been determined by prior events.
In the field of ethics, I would consider myself some flavor of
utilitarian, despite probably being a
moral non-realist. My moral non-realist position is that moral properties are mind-dependent - there are no moral facts that exist independent of minds (e.g., in the way that facts of physics or chemistry exist independent of minds). That being said, I find the basic principles of utilitarianism (the best actions maximize the well-being of sentient entities) most convincing in relation to the minds that do exist. I have a hard time pinning myself down to a subcategory of utilitarianism, but I think it's sufficient to say that my views lie somewhere in there. This viewpoint has manifested itself in my
vegetarian diet and my support of the effective altruism movement.
I have far less figured out when it comes to political philosophy. I generally subscribe to John Stuart Mill's
Harm Principle (the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals), but I have a hard time definitively saying much more than that.
Another area that I find interesting but don't have much to say about is the philosophy of mind. Since I believe that our minds emerge from a purely physical system that is the brain, I think that
artificial general intelligence is in principle possible. However, at this point I will not make any claims about how likely we are to achieve such a thing.
Posts
