= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AnnaSalamon comments on If reductionism is the hammer, what nails are out there? - 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 (46)
What about ethics? It seems that many people think there is some 'moral bedrock' somewhere -- but is there really such a thing?
To me it seems that ethical questions are really about the tension between our knee-jerk moral intuitions and ethical frameworks (utilitarianism, deontology etc.). Increasingly elaborate theories are built out of the urge to somehow make our 'moral compass' seem logical, until someone comes up with some clever example where the theory somehow conflicts with our intuitions...
I know moral relativism is not universally popular, but can reductionism/rationalism lead to anything else?
You're right -- ethics should be on the list.
I'd had it there originally, and had then removed it on the theory peoples' persistent tendency to postulate an essential and irreducible ethics had more to do with folks having strong and non-truth-seeking motives on the subject than with empirical regularities of a sort that essences could help predict.
But on reflection, one's goals are confusingly different from other sorts of phenomena, so maybe even without strong emotions folks would expect magical essences here.
Which list? The list of things successfully reduced, or the list of candidates for reduction that you are asking us to help you build?
You wondered why people seem to be confused by this posting. I think it is because there are two lists being discussed here, and you have been extremely unclear in your transitions in distinguishing them.
Or maybe it is just me.