Suffice it to say that I don't agree. Having a consistent definition of exists would help immeasurably in clarifying positions on the moral realism / anti-realism debate. And you don't do a good job of noting when you are using a word in a non-standard way (and your other interlocutors are not great at noticing that your usage is non-standard).
You do realize that the standard understandings in the moral realism debate would say that referencing wrongness to a particular (non-universal) source of judgment is an anti-realist position?
Saying that right and wrong are meaningful only given a particular social context is practically the textbook definition of moral relativism, which is an anti-realist position.
Suffice it to say that I don't agree.
That's a position, not an argument.
Having a consistent definition of exists would help immeasurably in clarifying positions on the moral realism / anti-realism debate.
Boooring... I care about accurate models, not choosing between two equally untestable positions.
You do realize that the standard understandings in the moral realism debate would say that referencing wrongness to a particular (non-universal) source of judgment is an anti-realist position?
Why should I care what a particular school of untestables ...
The Litany of Tarski (formulated by Eliezer, not Tarski) reads
If the box contains a diamond,
I desire to believe that the box contains a diamond;
If the box does not contain a diamond,
I desire to believe that the box does not contain a diamond;
Let me not become attached to beliefs I may not want.
This works for a physical realist, but I have been feeling uncomfortable with it for some time now. So I have decided to reformulate it in a more instrumental way, replacing existential statements with testable predictions. I had to find a new name for it, so I call it the Litany of Instrumentarski:
If believing that there is a diamond in the box lets me find the diamond in the box,
I desire to believe that there is a diamond in the box;
If believing that there is a diamond in the box leaves me with an empty box,
I desire to believe that there is no diamond in the box;
Let me not become attached to inaccurate beliefs.
Posting it here in a hope that someone else also finds it more palatable and unassuming than straight-up realism.
EDIT: It seems to me that this modification also guides you to straight-up one-box on Newcomb, where the original one is mired in the EDT vs CDT issues.
EDIT2: Looks like the above version resulting in people confusing desiring accurate beliefs with desiring diamonds. It's about accurate accounting, not about utility of a certain form of crystallized carbon.
Maybe the first line should be modified to something like "If I later find a diamond in the box...", or something. How about the following?
If I will find a diamond in the box,
I desire to believe that I will find a diamond in the box;
If I will find no diamond in the box,
I desire to believe that I will find no diamond in the box;
Let me not become attached to inaccurate beliefs.
For some reason the editor does not let me use the <strike> tag to cross out the previous version, not sure how to work around it.