= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Complexity of Value ≠ Complexity of Outcome - 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 (198)
Could you direct us to the best arguments for moral realism, or against anti-realism? Thanks!
My case was here:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/1m5/savulescu_genetically_enhance_humanity_or_face/1fuv
Basically, morality is a product of evolution - which can be expected to favour some moral values over other ones - just as it favours certain physical structures like eyes and legs.
Things like: "under most circumstances, don't massacre your relatives or yourself" can be reasonably expected to be widespread values in the universe. The idea gives morality a foundation in the natural world.
It is useful that Tim summarizes his position in this context, voted up.
My position, developed with no background in philosophy or meta-ethics whatsoever and thus likely to be error-riddled or misguided, is that I consider it an unsolved problem within physical materialism (specifically, within the context of moral anti-realism) how "meaning" (the meaning of life and/or the value of values) can be a coherent or possible concept.
Leave humans out of it and try to think about meanings of signals among animals, with an evolutionary perspective.