= 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)
I do not believe there is a set of correct preferences. There is no objective right or wrong.
Funny how you never quite answer the question as stated. Can you even say it is subjectively wrong?
"Wrong" meaning what?
Would I prefer the people around me not be bloodthirsty? Yes, I would prefer that.
Can people reason that bloodthirst is not a good preference to have...?
Even if there's no such thing as objective right and wrong, they might easily be able to reason that being bloodthirsty is not in their best selfish interest.
If there's no right or wrong, why does that matter?
I don't understand the question, nor why you singled out that fragment.
When you say "Even if there's no such thing as objective right and wrong" you're still implicitly presuming a default morality, namely ethical egoism.
For me, now, it isn't practical. In other circumstances it would be. It need not ever be a terminal goal but it could be an instrumental goal built in deeply.
It isn't 'funny' at all. You were trying to force someone into a lose lose morality signalling position. It is appropriate to ignore such attempts and instead state what your actual position is.
Your gambit here verges on logically rude.