“The universe is old, big, and empty. In comparison, we are new and small.”

So begins an interesting and fun article on a big question of perennial popular concern by Luke Elson (University of Reading) in the latest issue of Ethics.

Observations of the vastness of the universe in comparison to tiny little us—the “cosmic disparity”—are familiar from common complaints about meaninglessness. “How could anything matter in a huge, cold, empty universe like this?” goes the cliché.

Philosophers have tended to reject inferences from the size of the universe to its lack of objective evaluative properties, as it’s unclear what one has to do with the other.

But Elson aims to defend a version of the cliché. He doesn’t argue that the size of the universe directly implies that nothing objectively matters. Rather, his position is that the universe’s immensity weakens the evidence for robust realism, the idea that “there are sui generis evaluative or other ethical properties.”

In other words, contrary to what many philosophers believe, size¹ matters².

Here’s the skeleton of Elson’s argument, which he calls the “Abductive-Evidential Argument Against Robust Realism”:

1. Robust Realism gains support from its explanation of our evaluative judgments.
2. The parsimony cost of its sui generis ontology counts against Robust Realism.
3. The cosmic disparity. Our evaluative judgments form a very small part of the total evidence base. In a smaller cosmos, our evaluative judgments would form a larger part of the total evidence base.
4. Scale matters. Insofar as a partial theory offers a good explanation or account of some part of the evidence base (or “set of facts”),this carries more theoretical weight, as that part is a larger portion of the total evidence base.
5. So, the cosmic disparity weakens the evidential support for Robust Realism provided by our evaluative judgments. That support is weaker in this cosmos than it would be in a smaller cosmos. (From 1, 3, and 4.)
6. The size of the universe doesn’t affect any of the other considerations for or against Robust Realism, such as the parsimony cost of its sui generis ontology.
7. So, all things considered, the cosmic disparity weakens the evidence for Robust Realism. (From 5 and 6.)

For a further explanation of the argument and a defense of it against objections, read the whole paper, “The Size of the Universe Against Robust Realism“, which the journal’s editor (Doug Portmore) and publisher (University of Chicago Press) have kindly agreed to make open-access for a couple of weeks.

1. (of the universe)
2. (evidentially, to the question of objective value)

Note: The original version of this post included an “against” which should have been a “for” in the description of Elson’s position. It has now been corrected. Thanks to David Killoren for catching that.