wedrifid comments on Rationality quotes: June 2010 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Morendil 01 June 2010 06:07PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (215)
Tags: quotes

Comments (215)

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

Comment author: CronoDAS 08 June 2010 05:29:37AM *  1 point [-]

Some more context, from the link:

I consider the claim that 'ought' cannot be derived from 'is' to be a very remarkable claim. It suggests that there something . . . 'oughtness' . . . that is totally distinct and separate from things that exist in the real world . . . 'isness' . . . yet is supposed to have relevance in the real world. It is referred to as a part of the real-world explanations for the movement of real matter through space-time. Yet, we are told, this 'ought' or 'should' that we are making a reference to and that has these owers is something distinct and separate from anything in the world of 'is'.

[...]

My position is that 'ought' is relevant in the real world because 'ought' is a species of 'is', and there is no mystery as to how 'is' can be relevant in the real world.

So, when I put you cannot derive 'ought' from 'is' up against 'ought' can interact with 'is' because it is a species of 'is', and I realize that one of them must be mistaken, it seems far more likely that we will find the error in the first proposition rather than the second. I would be far less surprised by a discovery that 'ought' is relevant to 'is' because 'ought' is a subset of 'is' than that there is a realm of 'ought' separate and distinct from 'is' but still relevant in the world of 'is'.

Comment author: wedrifid 18 June 2010 12:47:17PM 2 points [-]

Wow. If he keeps playing around with words like that it should only take him two more paragraphs to 'prove' the existence of God.

Comment author: simplicio 19 June 2010 04:10:25AM 0 points [-]

Really?

I interpret him to be saying something fairly non-dualistic - namely, that morality is not an ontologically basic thing separate from physics.

He also may be saying that moral claims reduce to fact claims in some sense, which is almost true (you need to throw some values in as well).

Are you coming at this from the perspective of a moral nihilist?

Comment author: wedrifid 19 June 2010 10:23:41AM 2 points [-]

I interpret him to be saying something fairly non-dualistic - namely, that morality is not an ontologically basic thing separate from physics.

I did not like the particular way he was trying to make morality relate to physics. I thought it asserted a confused relationship between 'is' and 'ought'.

He also may be saying that moral claims reduce to fact claims in some sense, which is almost true (you need to throw some values in as well).

I think that was a point that he was at least trying to make and it is something I agree with.

Are you coming at this from the perspective of a moral nihilist?

No. That's for people who realise that God doesn't tell them what morality is and get all emo about it. I more take a 'subjectively objective' position (probably similar to what you expressed in the previous paragraph).

Comment author: Blueberry 19 June 2010 04:26:13PM 2 points [-]

That's for people who realise that God doesn't tell them what morality is and get all emo about it.

Succinctly stated. I love it.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit