= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on Suffering - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (92)
There are three points, marked with bullet points.
1) "Moral approval" is magical. 2) Reducing "This is good" to "I like this" misrepresents the way people actually speak. 3) Emotivism doesn't account for the use of sentences in a context -- which is the whole of actual ethical speech.
Emotivism is very different from projectivism. One is a theory of ethical language, and one is a theory of mind.
EDIT: Perhaps this wasn't so clear -- one consequence of projectivism is a theory of ethical language as well; see Psychohistorian below. My point was that it's a category error to consider them as indistinguishable, because projectivism proper has consequences in several other fields of philosophy, whereas emotivism proper is mostly about ethical language and doesn't say anything wrt how we think about things other than moral approval.
I didn't say I can't distinguish them, I said the particular attack on emotivism applies just as well to projectivism.
My bad; I misread you.
As much as I'd like to think so, I'll try to learn a lesson about pronouns and antecedents in high latency communications.