= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NMJablonski comments on What is Metaethics? - 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 (550)
Why should we think that there are categorical rights and wrongs?
I just don't see any convincing reason to believe they exist.
EDIT: Not to mention, it isn't clear what it would mean - in a real physical sense - for something to be categorically right or wrong.
We do think there are categorical rights and wrongs, because it is common sense that designing better gas chambers is not good, however well you do it. So the burden is on the makers of the extraordinary claim.
know what it means for a set to be uncountable, and I don't have the faintest idea what that has to do with the really physical. So that is perhaps unimportant. Perhaps you are stuck in a loop where you can't understand what other people understand because you have a strange notion of meaning.
What you should notice about this exchange is that you've made an incorrect prediction, and that therefore there might be something wrong with your model.
I suppose you mean I incorrectly roped in NMJ. But I don't think s/he is statistically significant,and then there is the issue of sincerity. Does NMJ really think it is good to design an improved gas chamber?
What I mean is that you predicted that "we" think there are categorical rights and wrongs, and you were incorrect (more than just NMJablonski disagree with you). Moreover, the fact that you seem to think "is it good to design an improved gas chamber" is inherently about "categorical rights and wrongs" indicates either dishonest argumentation or a failure to understand the position of your interlocutor.
I didn't predict anything about what my interlocutors think: I made an accurate comment about ordinary people at large.
think what I said is that it is about categorical rights and wrongs if it is about anything. NMJ seems to think it is about nothing. If you think it is about something else,you need to say what:: I cannot guess.
You cannot guess? Do you not see the irony in making this request?
Here is the situation: people often use a single word (such as 'good') to mean many different things. Thus, if you wish to use the word to mean something in particular - especially in an argument about that word! - you might have to define your own meaning.
Besides - the behemoth Opal ("ordinary people at large") is a poor judge of many things.
Making the categorical/hypothetical distinction is a way of refining the meaning. I'm already there (although I am getting accused of pedantry for my efforts).
Would you be willing to move this to the IRC?