Perplexed comments on Folk grammar and morality - Less Wrong

20 Post author: Emile 17 December 2010 09:20PM

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

Comments (61)

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

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 18 December 2010 06:02:52AM *  6 points [-]

Mine was because I would like to see fewer comments here that simply suggest "Read the sequences" without suggesting why.

I can understand that that could sometimes be a problem. But doesn't Eugine's quotation make it clear that he was pointing to where "EY has considered [morality] seriously"?

I guess I was surprised because I'm inclined to view this kind of cross referencing as valuable. For example, it makes it easier for lurkers to follow a chain of links back to substantive explanations in the sequences. But I take your point that "Read the sequences" is way too broad to be useful, and "read the metaethics sequence" is still very broad.

But, in this case, Costanza had possibly implied an interest in Eliezer's views on morality. And, until Costanza expresses a more particular interest, the best that you can do is to direct him/her to the entire metaethics sequence.

Comment author: Perplexed 18 December 2010 03:50:07PM 3 points [-]

Yes. I accept your analysis. My downvote has now been backed out.

Now you have me curious as to why the other two downvotes happened. But not curious enough to request an explanation. Karma micromanagement postmortems are not the most productive use of our time. I'm going to make an early New Year's resolution and avoid them from now on.