= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Sawin comments on Pluralistic Moral Reductionism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (316)
There is.
You weren't.
I do not think I am equivocating. Rather, I disagree with lukeprog about what people are changing when they disagree about morality.
lukeprog thinks that people disagree about what ought means / the definition of ought.
I believe that (almost) everybody things "ought" means the same thing, and that people disagree about the concept that "ought" usually refers to.
This concept is special because it has a reverse definition. Normally a word is defined by the situations in which you can infer that a statement about that word is true. However, "ought" is defined the other way - by what you can do when you infer that a statement about "ought" is true.
Is it the case that Katy ought to buy a car? Well, I don't know. But I know that if Katy is rational, and she becomes convinced that she ought to buy a car, then she will buy a car.
What is the difference between what "ought" means and what it refers to?
Edit:
In the above, do you say that "You ought to do X." is exactly equivalent to the command"Do X!", and "I ought to do X." means "I will do X on the first opportunity and not by accident." ?
Ought we base the definition of "ought" on a pretty complicated notion of rationality?
(yay, I finally caused a confusion that should be really easy to clear up!)
Alice and Bob agree that "Earth" means "that giant thing under us". Alice and Bob disagree about the Earth, though. They disagree about that giant thing under them. Alice thinks it's round, and Bob thinks it's flat.
Yes, this is the distinction I had in mind.
So do you now think that I do not equivocate?
No, I think there is still equivocation in the claim that your dialog and Luke's contradict one another. Luke is talking about the meaning of the word "Earth" and you are talking about the giant thing under us.
I also do not completely buy the assertion that "ought" is special because it has a reverse definition. This assertion itself sounds to me like a top-down definition of the ordinary type, if an unusually complex one.
Well there are two possible definitions, Luke's and my reverse definition (or top-down definition of the ordinary type).
If you accept both definitions, then you have just proved that the right thing to do is XYZ. One shouldn't be able to prove this just from definitions. Therefore you cannot accept both definitions.
Let's try an analogy in another normative arena.
Suppose we propose to define rationality extensionally. Scientists study rationality for many decades and finally come up with a comprehensive definition of rationality that becomes the consensus. And then they start using that definition to shape their own inference patterns. "The rational thing to do is XYZ," they conclude, using their definitions.
Where's the problem?
Because the rational thing means the thing that produces good results, so you need a shouldness claim to scientifically study rationality claims, and science cannot produce shouldness claims.
The hidden assumption is something like "Good results are those produced by thinking processes that people think are rational" or something along those lines. If you accept that assumption, or any similar assumption, such a study is valid.
Let's temporarily segregate rational thought vs. rational action, though they will ultimately need to be reconciled. I think that we can, and must, characterize rational thought first. We must, because "good results" are good only insofar as they are desired by a rational agent. We can, because while human beings aren't very good individually at explicitly defining rationality, they are good, collectively via the scientific enterprise, at knowing it when they see it.
In this context, "science cannot produce shouldness claims" is contentious. Best not to make a premise out of it.
I have difficulty to apply the analogy to ought.