Did AI convince me that I created a new metaethical framework? Or did I actually create one?
I started taking quizzes to explore what my metaethical framework might be but depending on which one I took I kept getting different results. (Emotivism, constructivism, rule utilitarianism, etc.) So I opened a couple LLMs, and asked them to determine based on how I answered questions. Similar to the quizzes, they split me between different frameworks. I explained to the LLMs why I struggled to answer some of the questions and over the course of a few exchanges they insisted that while close to a few sociology and game theory writings it didn't neatly match a known framework and that mine might be something new.
If this were mathematics I feel like it would be pretty easy to chalk it up to LLM hallucination or something. Because it's philosophy I'm less sure. I'll put the actual framework below, but it might not be necessary because I guess I'm asking how would I know if it's good/real philosophy or not?
...
If you think it's relevant here's the very broad strokes of my metaethical framework.
Framework holds that morality is an emergent property that occurs when highly social creatures exist in abundant conditions. This explains immoral behaviors in scarcity without condoning them and argues that acting morally means acting in a way that reduces structural scarcity.
Obviously definitions are going to be super important to defend this, but since most frameworks are part of manuscripts that are tens of thousands of words in length, I don't want to write that much until I'm sure it's a real thing and not something I've been manipulated into thinking I invented.