Eugine_Nier 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: CuSithBell 28 April 2011 03:45:16PM 3 points [-]

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?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 29 April 2011 01:26:46AM *  1 point [-]

as opposed to a human system of don't be a jerk.

Now we're getting somewhere. What do you mean by the work "jerk" and why is it any more meaningful then words like "moral"/"right"/"wrong"?

Comment author: CuSithBell 29 April 2011 01:30:45AM 1 point [-]

The distinction I am trying to make is between Moral Facts Engraved Into The Foundation Of The Universe and A Bunch Of Words And Behaviors And Attitudes That People Have (as a result of evolution & thinking about stuff etc.). I'm not sure if I'm being clear, is this description easier to interpret?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 29 April 2011 01:35:47AM *  2 points [-]

Near as I can tell, what you mean by "don't be a jerk" is one possible example of what I mean by morality.

Hope that helps.

Comment author: CuSithBell 29 April 2011 01:46:06AM 1 point [-]

Great! Then I think we agree on that.