Vaniver 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)

Comments (456)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: Vaniver 19 November 2014 02:55:09PM 2 points [-]

We can learn that "all for the cause, whatever it is" is a failure of rationality.

Entirely agreed.

Religious epistemology - dogmatism+vagueness - is just the problem

I don't see the dogmatism you're noticing--yes, Eliezer has strong opinions on issues I don't think he should have strong opinions on, but those strong opinions are only weakly transmitted to others and you'll find robust disagreement. Similarly, the vagueness I've noticed tends to be necessary vagueness, in the sense of "X is an open problem, but here's my best guess at how X will be solved. You'll notice that it's fuzzy here, there, and there, which is why I think the problem is still open."

Comment author: TheAncientGeek comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: Vaniver 19 November 2014 08:15:04PM 2 points [-]

So what actually is the LessWrongian theory of ethics?

In order to answer this question, I'm switching to the anthropology of moral belief and practice (as lukeprog puts it here).

I don't think there's a single agreed-upon theory. The OP is part of lukeprog's sequence where he put forward a theory of meta-ethics he calls pluralistic moral reductionism, which he says here is not even an empathetic theory of meta-ethics, let alone applied ethics. Eliezer's sequence on meta-ethics suffers from the flaw that it's written 'in character,' and was not well-received. If you look at survey results, you see that the broadest statements we can make are things like "overall people here lean towards consequentialism."

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 23 November 2014 06:46:21PM -1 points [-]

Ok. You can't summarize it unambiguously either. So why do people believe it?

Comment author: dxu 23 November 2014 09:10:53PM * 1 point [-]

So why do people believe it? (emphasis mine)

From Vaniver's comment:

I don't think there's a single agreed-upon theory.

What "it" are you speaking of?

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 24 November 2014 02:25:06AM -1 points [-]

The lesswrongian theory of ethics, If you don't believe there is such a singular entity, you couldn't say so...I'm hardly going to disagree.

Comment author: dxu 24 November 2014 05:02:29AM * 1 point [-]

I doubt you'll find anyone here seriously saying that we've found a definitive theory of metaethics. That is our eventual goal, yes, but right now, there are at best several competing theories. No absolutely correct theory has even been proposed, much less endorsed by the majority of LW. So the answer to your question ("Why do people believe it?") is, as far as I can tell, "They don't." My question, however, is why you think this is something really bad, as opposed to something just slightly bad.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 24 November 2014 10:45:58AM * 0 points [-]

If you look upthread, youll see that what I think is really bad is advising people not to study mainstream philosophy.

I also think it bad to call philosophy diseased for not being able to solve problems you can't solve either.

And it might be an idea to add a warning to the metaethics sequences: "Before reading these million words, please note that they don't go anywhere".

Vaniver comments on Conceptual Analysis and Moral Theory - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (456)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (456)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login