= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier 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)
Killing innocent people is wrong barring extenuating circumstances.
(I'll taboo the "weasel words" innocent and extenuating circumstances as soon as you taboo the "weasel words" near the surface of the earth and not subject to other forces.
I'm not sure it's possible for my example to be wrong anymore then its possible for 2+2 to equal 3.
What is the difference between:
"Killing innocent people is wrong barring extenuating circumstances"
and
"Killing innocent people is right barring extenuating circumstances"
How do you determine which one is accurate? What observable consequences does each one predict? What do they lead you to anticipate?
Moral facts don't lead me to anticipate observable consequences, but they do affect the actions I choose to take.
Preferences also do that.
Yes, well opinions also anticipate observations. But in a sense by talking about "observable consequences" your taking advantage of the fact that the meta-theory of science is currently much more developed then the meta-theory of ethics.
But some preferences can be moral, just as some opinions can be true. There is no automatic entailment from "it is a preference" to "it has nothing to do with ethics".
The question was - how do you determine what the moral facts are?
Currently, intuition. Along with the existing moral theories, such as they are.
Similar to the way people determined facts about physics, especially facts beyond the direct observation of their senses, before the scientific method was developed.
Right, and 'facts' about God. Except that intuitions about physics derive from observations of physics, whereas intuitions about morality derive from observations of... intuitions.
You can't really argue that objective morality not being well-defined means that it is more likely to be a coherent notion.
My point is that you can't conclude the notion of morality is incoherent simple because we don't yet have a sufficiently concrete definition.
Technically, yes. But I'm pretty much obliged, based on the current evidence, to conclude that it's likely to be incoherent.
More to the point: why do you think it's likely to be coherent?
Mostly by outside view analogy with the history of the development of science. I've read a number of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers (along with a few post-modernists) arguing against the possibility of a coherent theory of physics using arguments very similar to the ones people are using against morality.
I've also read a (much larger) number of philosophers trying to shoehorn what we today call science into using the only meta-theory then available in a semi-coherent state: the meta-theory of mathematics. Thus we see philosophers, Descartes being the most famous, trying and failing to study science by starting with a set of intuitively obvious axioms and attempting to derive physical statements from them.
I think people may be making the same mistake by trying to force morality to use the same meta-theory as science, i.e., asking what experiences moral facts anticipate.
As for likely I'm not sure how likely this is, I just think its more likely then a lot of people on this thread assume.
If that is true, what virtue do moral fact have which is analogous to physical facts anticipating experience, and mathematical facts being formally provable?
To be clear - you are talking about morality as something externally existing, some 'facts' that exist in the world and dictate what you should do, as opposed to a human system of don't be a jerk. Is that an accurate portrayal?
If that is the case, there are two big questions that immediately come to mind (beyond "what are these facts" and "where did they come from") - first, it seems that Moral Facts would have to interact with the world in some way in order for the study of big-M Morality to be useful at all (otherwise we could never learn what they are), or they would have to be somehow deducible from first principles. Are you supposing that they somehow directly induce intuitions in people (though, not all people? so, people with certain biological characteristics?)? (By (possibly humorous, though not mocking!) analogy, suppose the Moral Facts were being broadcast by radio towers on the moon, in which case they would be inaccessible until the invention of radio. The first radio is turned on and all signals are drowned out by "DON'T BE A JERK. THIS MESSAGE WILL REPEAT. DON'T BE A JERK. THIS MESSAGE WILL...".)
The other question is, once we have ascertained that there are Moral Facts, what property makes them what we should do? For instance, suppose that all protons were inscribed in tiny calligraphy in, say, French, "La dernière personne qui est vivant, gagne." ("The last person who is alive, wins" - apologies for Google Translate) Beyond being really freaky, what would give that commandment force to convince you to follow it? What could it even mean for something to be inherently what you should do?
It seems, ultimately, you have to ask "why" you should do "what you should do". Common answers include that you should do "what God commands" because "that's inherently What You Should Do, it is By Definition Good and Right". Or, "don't be a jerk" because "I'll stop hanging out with you". Or, "what makes you happy and fulfilled, including the part of you that desires to be kind and generous" because "the subjective experience of sentient beings are the only things we've actually observed to be Good or Bad so far".
So, where do we stand now?
Define your terms, then you get a fair hearing. If you are just saying the terms could maybe someday be defined, this really isn't the kind of thing that needs a response.
To put it in perspective, you are speculating that someday you will be able to define what the field you are talking about even is. And your best defense is that some people have made questionable arguments against this non-theory? Why should anyone care?
Talk about morality and good and bad clearly has a role in social signaling. It is also true that people clearly have preferences that they act upon, imperfectly. I assume you agree with these two assertions; if not we need to have a "what color is the sky?" type of conversation.
If you do agree with them, what would you want from a meta-ethical theory that you don't already have?
Which is true, and explains why it is a harder problem than physics, and less progress has been made.
I'm not sure I accept either of those claims, explanation or no.
Yes, but we've already determined that we don't disagree - unless you think we still do? I was arguing against observing objective (i.e. externally existing) morality. I suspect that you disagree more with Eugine_Nier.
What would it take to convince you your example is wrong?
Note how "2+2=4" has observable consequences:
Does your example (or another you care to come up with) have observable consequences?
What is weasel-like with "near the surface of the earth"?
In this context, it's as "weasel-like" as "innocent". In the sense that both are fudge factors you need to add to the otherwise elegant statement to make it true.