= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
XiXiDu 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)
Sociology? Psychology? Game theory? Mathematics? What does moral philosophy add to the sciences that is useful, that helps us to dissolve confusion and understand the nature of reality?
Moral philosophy, like all philosophy, does nothing directly to illuminate the nature of reality. What it does is to illuminate the nature of confusion.
How does someone who thinks that 'morality' is meaningless discuss the subject with someone who attaches meaning to the word? Answer: They talk to each other carefully and respectfully.
What do you call the subject matter of that discussion? Answer: Metaethics.
What do you call success in this endeavor? Answer: "Dissolving the confusion".
Moral philosophy does not illuminate the nature of confusion, it is the confusion. I am asking, what is missing and what confusion is left if you disregard moral philosophy and talk about right and wrong in terms of preferences?
I'm tempted to reply that what is missing is the ability to communicate with anyone who believes in virtue ethics or deontological ethics, and therefore doesn't see how preferences are even involved. But maybe I am not understanding your point.
Perhaps an example would help. Suppose I say, "It is morally wrong for Alice to lie to Bob." How would you analyze that moral intuition in terms of preferences. Whose preferences are we talking about here? Alice's, Bob's, mine, everybody else's? For comparison purposes, also analyze the claim "It is morally wrong for Bob to strangle Alice."
Due to your genetically hard-coded intuitions about appropriate behavior within groups of primates, your upbringing, cultural influences, rational knowledge about the virtues of truth-telling and preferences involving the well-being of other people, you feel obliged to influence the intercourse between Alice and Bob in a way that persuades Alice to do what you want, without feeling inappropriately influenced by you, by signaling your objection to certain behaviors as an appeal to the order of higher authority .
If you say, "I don't want you to strangle Alice.", Bob might reply, "I don't care what you want!".
If you say, "Strangling Alice might have detrimental effects on your other preferences.", Bob might reply, "I assign infinite utility to the death of Alice!" (which might very well be the case for humans in a temporary rage).
But if you say, "It is morally wrong to strangle Alice.", Bob might get confused and reply, "You are right, I don't want to be immoral!". Which is really a form of coercive persuasion. Since when you say, "It is morally wrong to strangle Alice.", you actually signal, "If you strangle Alice you will feel guilty.". It is a manipulative method that might make Bob say, "You are right, I don't want to be immoral!", when what he actually means is, "I don't want to feel guilty!".
Primates don't like to be readily controled by other primates. To get them to do what you want you have to make them believe that, for some non-obvious reason, they actually want to do it themselves.
This sounds like you are trying to explain-away the phenomenon, rather than explain it. At the very least, I would think, such a theory of morality needs to make some predictions or explain some distinctions. For example, what is it about the situation that causes me to try to influence Alice and Bob using moral arguments in these cases, whereas I use other methods of influence in other cases?
Complex influences, like your culture and upbringing.That's also why some people don't say that it is morally wrong to burn a paperback book while others are outraged by the thought. And those differences and similarities can be studied, among other fields, in terms of cultural anthropology and evolutionary psychology.
It needs a multidisciplinary approach to tackle such questions. But moral philosophy shouldn't be part of the solution because it is largely mistaken about cause and effect. Morality is an effect of our societal and cultural evolution, shaped by our genetically predisposition as primates living in groups. In this sense moral philosophy is a meme that is part of a larger effect and therefore can't be part of a reductionist explanation of itself. The underlying causes of cultural norms and our use of language can be explained by social and behavioural sciences, applied mathematics like game theory, computer science and linguistics.
Guilt works here, for example. (But XiXiDu covered that.) Social pressure also. Veiled threat and warning, too. Signaling your virtue to others as well. Moral arguments are so handy that they accomplish all of these in one blow.
ETA: I'm not suggesting that you in particular are trying to guilt trip people, pressure them, threaten them, or signal. I'm saying that those are all possible explanations as to why someone might prefer to couch their arguments in moral terms: it is more persuasive (as Dark Arts) in certain cases. Though I reject moralist language if we are trying to have a clear discussion and get at the truth, I am not against using Dark Arts to convince Bob not to strangle Alice.
Perplexed wrote earlier:
Sometimes you'll want to explain why your punishment of others is justified. If you don't want to engage Perplexed's "moral realism", then either you don't think there's anything universal enough (for humans, or in general) in it to be of explanatory use in the judgments people actually make, or you don't think it's a productive system for manufacturing (disingenuous yet generally persuasive) explanations that will sometimes excuse you.
Assuming I haven't totally lost track of context here, I think I am saying that moral language works for persuasion (partially as Dark Arts), but is not really suitable for intellectual discourse.
Okay. Whatever he hopes is real (but you think is only confused), will allow you to form persuasive arguments to similar people. So it's still worth talking about.
Virtue ethicists and deontologists merely express a preference for certain codes of conduct because they believe adhering to these codes will maximize their utility, usually via the mechanism of lowering their time preference.
ETA: And also, as XiXiDu points out, to signal virtuosity.
Upvoted because I strongly agree with the spirit of this post, but I don't think moral philosophy succeeds in dissolving the confusion. So far it has failed miserably, and I suspect that it is entirely unnecessary. That is, I think this is one field that can be dissolved away.
Like if an atheist is talking to a religious person then the subject matter is metatheology?