Peterdjones 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (550)

Comments (550)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: Peterdjones 27 April 2011 06:13:10PM -2 points [-]

If you can't figure out what to apply "morality" to, that is your problem. Most people do not share it.

Comment author: NMJablonski 27 April 2011 06:22:25PM * 3 points [-]

Alright.

I'm going to give this one last shot. Can you explain, succinctly, what you're talking about when you say "morality"?

Comment author: Peterdjones 27 April 2011 07:03:14PM 0 points [-]

concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct

Comment author: NMJablonski 27 April 2011 07:11:47PM * 5 points [-]

What is it about conduct that makes it right and good as opposed to wrong and evil?

What is it that determines these attributes, if not human preference?

Comment author: Peterdjones comment score below threshold [+] (363 children)

Comment author: CuSithBell 27 April 2011 07:43:54PM 8 points [-]

"Oi, I just saw a smeert!"

"What's a smeert?"

"So you believe in smeerts then?"

Comment author: NMJablonski 27 April 2011 07:30:47PM * 5 points [-]

I'm sorry. It's clear that you're motivated to "win" an argument, not get at reality.

For the record, words do not have intrinsic meanings. If you are willing to use simpler words that we are likely to agree on to explain what you mean by "moral", "right" and "good" then I will be happy to read it. Otherwise, I just cannot take you seriously enough to continue this.

EDIT: If you really would like to discuss this I suggest we move to the LessWrong IRC channel instead of making a long person to person thread here.

Comment author: Peterdjones comment score below threshold [+] (360 children)

Comment author: nhamann 27 April 2011 08:33:14PM 3 points [-]

You think that claiming to have no understanding at all of ordinary words is getting at reality?

It's almost never sufficient, but it is often necessary to discard wrong words.

Comment author: Peterdjones 27 April 2011 08:47:32PM 0 points [-]

..and it's necessary to have a reasoned motivation for that. If you could really disprove things just by unmotivated refusal to use language, you could disprove everything. Meta-principle: treat one-size-fits-all arguments with suspicion.

Comment author: Cyan 27 April 2011 08:51:24PM * 1 point [-]

Meta-principle: treat one-size-fits-all arguments with suspicion.

Around here we call those "fully general counter-arguments".

ETA: you've misunderstood the grandparent, the point of which is not about a refusal to use language but rather about using it more precisely so as to avoid miscommunication and errors.

continue this thread »

Comment author: NMJablonski 27 April 2011 08:02:49PM 0 points [-]

Alright sport. If you're unwilling to explain, you can go on being an amateur ethicist and I'll resume my policy of ignoring the field until something interesting happens.

Comment author: Peterdjones comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Peterdjones comments on What is Metaethics? - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (550)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (550)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login