XiXiDu comments on What is Metaethics? - Less Wrong

31 Post author: lukeprog 25 April 2011 04:53PM

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

Comments (550)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 27 April 2011 10:23:12AM 4 points [-]

This just shows that human wants are inconsistent

But these two desires are not inconsistent, because for someone to die by, say, natural causes, is not the same thing as for him to die by your own hand.

People or road blockades, what's the difference? I just don't see why one would talk about morality here. The preferences of other people are simply more complex road blockades on the way towards your goal. Some of those blockades are artistically appealing so you try to be careful in removing them...why invoke 'morality' in this context?

You could say the same thing about socks. E.g., "I just don't see why one would talk about socks here. Socks are simply complex arrangements of molecules. Why invoke "sock" in this context?"

What are you going to do instead of invoking "sock"? Are you going to describe the socks molecule by molecule as a way of avoiding using the word "sock"? That would be cumbersome, to say the least. Nor would it be any more true. Socks are real. They aren't imaginary. That they're made out of molecules does not stop them from being real.

All this can be said about morality. What are you going to do instead of invoking "morality"? Are you going to describe people's reactions as a way of avoiding using the word "morality"? That would be cumbersome, to say the least. Nor would it be any more true. Morality is real. It isn't imaginary. That it's made out of people's reactions doesn't stop it from being real.

Denying the reality of morality simply because it is made out of people's reactions, is like denying the reality of socks simply because they're made out of molecules.

Comment author: XiXiDu 27 April 2011 02:34:02PM 0 points [-]

What are you going to do instead of invoking "morality"? Are you going to describe people's reactions as a way of avoiding using the word "morality"? That would be cumbersome, to say the least.

I am going to use moral terminology in the appropriate cultural context. But why would one use it on a site that supposedly tries to dissolve problems using reductionism as a general heuristic? I am also using the term "free will" because people model their decisions according to that vague and ultimately futile concept. But if possible (if I am not too lazy) I avoid using any of those bogus memes.

Morality is real. It isn't imaginary. That it's made out of people's reactions doesn't stop it from being real.

Of course, it is real. Cthulhu is also real, it is a fictional cosmic entity. But if someone acts according to their fear of Cthulhu I am not going to resolve their fear by talking about it in terms of the Lovecraft Mythos but in terms of mental illness.

What are you going to do instead of invoking "morality"? Are you going to describe people's reactions as a way of avoiding using the word "morality"? That would be cumbersome, to say the least.

How so? Can you give an example where the use of terminology derived from moral philosophy is useful instead of obfuscating?