byrnema comments on Attention Less Wrong: We need an FAQ - Less Wrong

11 Post author: Kevin 27 April 2010 10:06AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (108)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: byrnema 29 April 2010 08:39:24PM *  0 points [-]

I agree with everything in your first paragraph, and was amazed it wasn't addressed to me. I can't believe how complicated this turns out being due to semantics. We could really use a good systemizer in the whole morality field, to clear the confusion of these tortuously ambiguous terms. (I should add that I'm not aware that there isn't one, but just skimming through this thread and its sisters seems to indicate one is needed.)

Comment author: Jack 29 April 2010 08:57:59PM 2 points [-]

The wikipedia entry turns out to be a really, really, excellent starting point.

Comment author: thomblake 29 April 2010 09:00:17PM 1 point [-]

As usual, SEP is more thorough but worse at giving you the at-a-glance summary.

Comment author: Jack 29 April 2010 08:48:42PM 1 point [-]

Lol, it might as well have been. I couldn't figure out which one of you had it wrong so I just replied to the most recent comment.

I'll try to put together a map or diagram for positions in metaethics.

Comment author: thomblake 29 April 2010 08:53:06PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure if we have a bona fide expert on metaethics hereabouts. Meta-anything gets squirrely if you're not being really careful.