= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
atucker comments on Morality and relativistic vertigo - 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 (78)
Its easier to tell that something is unhealthy than if its optimally healthy. Coughing up blood is worse than not doing so, but is good stamina better than increased alertness?
(I'd posit that) Most moral arguments are over if something is immoral or not, and I think that a lot of times those can be related to facts.
You're right that people often wonder whether something is moral as if it were a binary question, but they should be concerned about precisely how good or bad various actions or policies are, because all actions have opportunity costs.
It makes little sense to say "it is immoral for teachers to beat schoolchildren" without considering the effects of not beating schoolchildren.