Peterdjones 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: Peterdjones 18 May 2011 03:55:33PM *  0 points [-]

The idea that people by default have no idea at all what moral language is hard to credit, whether claimed of people in general, or claimed by individuals of themselves. Everyone, after all, is brought up from an early age with a great deal of moral exhortation, to do Good things and refrain from Naughty things. Perhaps not everybody gets very far along the Kohlberg scale, but no one is starting from scratch. People may not be able to articulate a clear definition, or not the kind of definition one would expect from a theory, but that does not mean one needs a theory of metaethics to give a meaning to "moral".

Comment author: Perplexed 18 May 2011 05:40:19PM 0 points [-]

that does not mean one needs a theory of metaethics to give a meaning to "moral".

No. One only needs a theory of metaethics to prevent philosophers from giving it a disastrously wrong meaning.