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.

Article Navigation

Comments (456)
Tags: metaethics morality

Comments (456)

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

Comment author: Peterdjones 26 May 2011 12:57:52AM 0 points [-]

There's a difference between disagreeing with something and not knowing what it means, and I do seriously not know what you mean. I'm not sure why you would think it is veiled disagreement, seeing as lukeprog's whole post was making this very same point about incoherence. (But incoherence also only has meaning in the sense of "incoherent to me" or someone else,

"incoherence" means several things. Some of them, such a self-contradiction are as objective as anything. You seem to find morality meaningless in some personal sense. Looking at dictionaries doesn't seem to work for you. Dictionaries tend to define the moral as the good.It is hard to believe that anyone can grow up not hearing the word "good" used a lot, unless they were raised by wolves. So that's why I see complaints of incoherence as being disguised disagreement.

At bottom, I act to get enjoyment and/or avoid pain, that is, to win.

If you say so. That doesn't make morality false, meaningless or subjective. It makes you an amoral hedonist.

But it seems to me that just because what I want can be influenced by what could be called objective or factual beliefs doesn't make my want for deliciousness "uninfluenced by personal feelings."

Perhaps not completley, but that sill leaves some things as relatively more objective than others.

In summary, value/preferences can either be defined to include (1) only personal feelings (though they may be universal or semi-universal), or to also include (2) beliefs about what would or wouldn't lead to such personal feelings. I can see how you mean that 2 could be objective, and then would want to call them thus "objective values." But not for 1, because personal feelings are, well, personal.

Then your categories aren't exhaustive, because preferences can also be defined to include universalisable values alongside personal whims. You may be making the classic of error of taking "subjective" to mean "believed by a subject"

Comment author: Amanojack 26 May 2011 01:15:49AM -1 points [-]

Dictionaries tend to define the moral as the good.It is hard to believe that anyone can grow up not hearing the word "good" used a lot, unless they were raised by wolves

The problem isn't that I don't know what it means. The problem is that it means many different things and I don't know which of those you mean by it.

an amoral hedonist

I have moral sentiments (empathy, sense of justice, indignation, etc.), so I'm not amoral. And I am not particularly high time-preference, so I'm not a hedonist.

preferences can also be defined to include universalisable values alongside personal whims

If you mean preferences that everyone else shares, sure, but there's no stipulation in my definitions that other people can't share the preferences. In fact, I said, "(though they may be universal or semi-universal)."

You may be making the classic of error of taking "subjective" to mean "believed by a subject"

It'd be a "classic error" to assume you meant one definition of subjective rather than another, when you haven't supplied one yourself? This is about the eight time in this discussion that I've thought that I can't imagine what you think language even is.

I doubt we have any disagreement, to be honest. I think we only view language very, radically differently. (You could say we have a disagreement about language.)

Comment author: Peterdjones 26 May 2011 01:43:37PM *  1 point [-]

Dictionaries tend to define the moral as the good.It is hard to believe that anyone can grow up not hearing the word "good" used a lot, unless they were raised by wolves

The problem isn't that I don't know what it means.

What "moral" means or what "good" means/?

The problem is that it means many different things and I don't know which of those you mean by it.

No, that isn't the problem. It has one basic meaning, but there are a lot of different theories about it. Elsewhere you say that utilitarianism renders objective morality meaningful. A theory of X cannot render X meaningful, but it can render X plausible.

I have moral sentiments (empathy, sense of justice, indignation, etc.), so I'm not amoral. And I am not particularly high time-preference, so I'm not a hedonist.

But you theorise that you only act on them(and that nobody ever acts but) toincrea se your pleasure.

If you mean preferences that everyone else shares, sure, but there's no stipulation in my definitions that other people can't share the preferences.

I don't see the point in stipulating that preferences can't be shared. People who believe they can be just have to find another word. Nothing is proven.

You may be making the classic of error of taking "subjective" to mean "believed by a subject"

It'd be a "classic error" to assume you meant one definition of subjective rather than another, when you haven't supplied one yourself?

I've quoted the dictionary derfinition, and that's what I mean.

"existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. 3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric"

This is about the eight time in this discussion that I've thought that I can't imagine what you think language even is.

I think language is public, I think (genuine) disagreements about meaning can be resolved with dictionaries, and I think you shouldn't assume someone is using idiosyncratic definitions unless they give you good reason.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit