= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardChappell comments on Ethics has Evidence Too - 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 (54)
I'm still not entirely clear on your position here. Are you just affirming the standard methodology of reflective equilibrium? Or are you suggesting something more specific: e.g., that we should weight intuitions about particular cases more heavily than intuitions about general principles?
The reflective equilibrium method is the right kind of approach (and I should have mentioned it). In addition, I think that without independent justification you can only take a general principle as far as your intuitions about it take you. So we might have a general intuition that consequentialism is right-- but we can't just assume that contrary intuitions about particular cases are wrong. All else being equal we should prefer theories that get intuitions about general principles and intuitions about particular cases, right.