Tyrrell_McAllister comments on Conceptual Analysis and Moral Theory - Less Wrong

60 Post author: lukeprog 16 May 2011 06:28AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (456)
Tags: metaethics morality

Comments (456)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 16 May 2011 07:25:01PM *  0 points [-]

I'm not sure that I'm seeing your point. Are you saying that

  • One shouldn't waste time on trying to concoct exceptionless definitions — "exceptionless" in the sense that they fit our intuitions in every single conceivable scenario. In particular, we shouldn't worry about "contrived" scenarios. If a definition works in the non-contrived cases, that's good enough.

... or are you saying that

  • Nozick's definition really is exceptionless. In every conceivable scenario, and for every single proposition P, every instance of someone "knowing" that P would conform to every one of Nozick's criteria (and conversely).

... or are you saying something else?

Comment author: [deleted] 16 May 2011 07:38:25PM 1 point [-]

Nozick apparently intended his definition to apply to single beliefs. I applied it to belief-creating strategies (or procedures, methods, mechanisms) rather than to individual beliefs. These strategies are to be evaluated in terms of their overall results if applied widely. Then I noticed that your two Gettier scenarios involved strategies which, respectively, violated and conformed to the definition as I applied it.

That's all. I am not drawing conclusions (yet).

Comment author: Jiro 14 March 2014 06:13:30PM 1 point [-]

I'm reminded of the Golden Rule. Since I would like if everyone would execute "if (I am Jiro) then rob", I should execute that as well.

It's actually pretty hard to define what it means for a strategy to be exceptionless, and it may be subject to a grue/bleen paradox.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit