RichardChappell comments on What is Eliezer Yudkowsky's meta-ethical theory? - Less Wrong

33 Post author: lukeprog 29 January 2011 07:58PM

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

Comments (368)

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

Comment author: RichardChappell 01 February 2011 04:56:46AM 0 points [-]

The answer to those objections, by the way, is that an "adequately objective" metaethics is impossible

That's not a reason to prefer EY's theory to an error theory (according to which properly normative properties would have to be irreducibly normative, but no such properties actually exist).

Comment author: lukeprog 01 February 2011 12:51:00PM 3 points [-]

Richard,

Until persuaded otherwise, I agree with you on this point. (These days, I take Richard Joyce to have the clearest defense of error theory, and I just subtract his confusing-to-me defense of fictionalism.) Besides, I think there are better ways of getting something like an 'objective' ethical theory (in something like a 'realist' sense) while still holding that reasons for action arise only from desires, or from relations between desires and states of affairs. In fact, that's the kind of theory I defend: desirism. Though, I'm not too interested anymore in whether desirism is to be called 'objective' or 'realist', even though I think a good case can be made for both.