lukeprog 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.

Comments (456)

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

Comment author: Amanojack 17 May 2011 07:17:09AM 3 points [-]

Upvoted for lucidity, but Empathetic Metaethics sounds more like the whole rest of LessWrong than metaethics specifically.

If there are supposed to be any additional connotations to Empathetic Metaethics it would make me very wary. I am wary of the connotation that I need someone to help me decide whether my feelings align with the Truth. I always assumed this site is called LessWrong because it generally tries to avoid driving readers to any particular conclusion, but simply away from misguided ones, so they can make their own decisions unencumbered by bias and confusion.

Austere-san may come off as a little callous, but Empathetic-san comes off as a meddler. I'd still rather just be a friendly Mr. Austere supplemented with other LW concepts, especially from the Human's Guide to Words sequence. After all, if it is just confusion and bias getting in the way, all there is to do is to sweep those errors away. Any additional offer of "help" in deciding what it is "right" for me to feel would tingle my Spidey sense pretty hard.

Comment author: lukeprog 17 May 2011 01:20:11PM *  2 points [-]

We are trying to be 'less wrong' because human brains are so far from ideal at epistemology and at instrumental rationality ('agency'). But it's a standard LW perspective to assert that there is a territory, and some maps of (parts of) it are right and others are wrong. And since we are humans, it helps to retrain our emotions: "Relinquish the emotion which rests upon a mistaken belief, and seek to feel fully that emotion which fits the facts."

Comment author: Amanojack 18 May 2011 06:56:53AM 3 points [-]

And since we are humans, it helps to retrain our emotions: "Relinquish the emotion which rests upon a mistaken belief, and seek to feel fully that emotion which fits the facts."

I'd rather call this "self-help" than "meta-ethics." Why self-help? Because...

But it's a standard LW perspective to assert that there is a territory, and some maps of (parts of) it are right and others are wrong.

...even if my emotions are "wrong," why should I care? In this case, the answer can only be that it will help me derive more satisfaction out of life if I get it "right", which seems to fall squarely under the purview of self-help.

Of course we can draw the lines between meta-ethics and self-help in various ways, but there is so much baggage in the label "ethics" that I'd prefer to get away from it as soon as possible.