= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Sawin comments on Separate morality from free will - 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 (84)
It seems like the right perspective to think about things goes something like this:
Facts about the world can be good or bad. It is good, for instance, when people are happy and healthy, and bad when they are not.
These are all pretty much equally bad, but 4 and possibly 3 are also someone's responsibility, and therefore morality is involved.
Some facts about the world are some people's responsibility. These seem to be some fraction of the facts that are true about their brain - yes 4 but not 2. Good things that are people's responsibility are moral in a different sense than good things that are not people's responsibility.
but this responsibility is philosophically very fuzzy and mostly isn't a useful concept.
Interesting breakdown.
My interpretation is that facts about the world are interpreted as good or bad by a brain capable of feeling pain, the usual indicator that a world-state is 'bad', and pleasure, the indicator that it is 'good'. Outside of the subjective, there are facts but not values. In the subjective, there are values of good and bad.
If I understand correctly what you're saying, it's that a fact having positive or negative value assigned to it by a brain (i.e. Alice falling and hitting her head) does not necessarily imply that this fact has a moral flavour attached to it by the same brain. It's not wrong that Alice fell, it's just bad...but it is wrong that Carol hit Fred. Am I reading your argument correctly?
What you're saying is true, but doesn't touch on the distinction that the post is about. The post contrasts two positions, both of which would agree with everything you just said.
It's a step on the way to dissolve or pseudo-dissolve the question.