[0x3f]

> And smart people usually have moral convictions.

Are you sure you don't just like the moral convictions and so engage in trait bundling?

Moral knowledge doesn't really exist. I mean you can have personal views on it, but the lack of falsifiability makes me suspect it wouldn't be well-correlated with intelligence.

Smarter people can discuss more layered or chic moral theories as they relate to theoretical AI, maybe.

[lo_zamoyski]

> Moral knowledge doesn't really exist.

If that is the case, then why should you or anyone prefer to believe your claim that moral knowledge doesn’t exist over the contrary?

[0x3f]

Different kinds of claims, it's not self-referential

[lo_zamoyski]

> Different kinds of claims

How so?

If I claim that one should prefer the claim "moral knowledge doesn't exist" over its contrary, then I am making a moral claim. That would make it self-refuting.

There is no fact-value dichotomy.

And one more thing...

> the lack of falsifiability

Is falsifiability falsifiable? If all credible claims must be falsifiable, then where does that leave us with the criterion of falsifiability (which is problematic even part from this particular case, as anyone who has done any serious reading in the philosophy of science knows).