Peterdjones comments on Pluralistic Moral Reductionism - Less Wrong

33 Post author: lukeprog 01 June 2011 12:59AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (316)
Tags: metaethics morality

Comments (316)

Sort By: Popular
Best Popular New Controversial Top Old Leading

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

Comment author: Peterdjones 01 June 2011 10:46:06PM 0 points [-]

If two people disagree about the definition of a word, the way forward isn't to jump into the argument on one side or the other. The way forward is to stop using that word that way.

If someone uses "cat" to mean "animal that barks", should everyone then stop using "cat"?

This is subjective with respect to the word (if you don't also specify how you're defining it) but we stopped using that word that way anyhow - it's objective with respect to the world, and that's what's important to how people act.

I can't make any sense of that.

Comment author: Manfred 02 June 2011 12:07:51AM 1 point [-]

If someone uses "cat" to mean "animal that barks", should everyone then stop using "cat"?

You're right, it's more complicated. It seems like the solution here is to make word choice a coordination problem, communication being a major goal of language - if a million people use it one way and one person uses it the other way, the one should say "an animal that barks." On the other hand if everyone has the same several definitions for a word, like "sound," then splitting up the word when necessary improves communication.

This is subjective with respect to the word (if you don't also specify how you're defining it) but we stopped using that word that way anyhow - it's objective with respect to the world, and that's what's important to how people act.

I can't make any sense of that.

You complain that letting people specify what they mean by "right" makes "right" subjective where people diverge. But this doesn't make the communication subjective if people replace "right" by an objective criterion for the world, so the bad stuff associated with just drifting off into subjectivity doesn't happen.

Although I guess you could be saying that "right" being subjective is inherently bad. But I would suggest that you're thinking about right_Peter, which is still objective.

Comment author: Peterdjones 02 June 2011 12:37:01AM *  0 points [-]

If everyone has their own notion of right, we still have the Bad Thing that an action can only be allowed of forbidden, not Peter-allowed and Manfred-forbidden.

Comment author: Manfred 02 June 2011 12:59:29AM 0 points [-]

? So it's impossible for two people to rationally disagree about whether or not an action is forbidden if the external state of the world is the same? I see no reason why "forbidden" in the moral sense should be objective.

Comment author: Peterdjones 02 June 2011 01:02:16AM 0 points [-]

So it's impossible for two people to rationally disagree about whether or not an action is forbidden if the external state of the world is the same?

If they disagree and they are both being rational, where's the objectivity?

I see no reason why "forbidden" in the moral sense should be objective.

Try explaining to someone that something they like should be forbidden because you don't like it.

Comment author: Manfred 02 June 2011 01:56:14AM 0 points [-]

So it's impossible for two people to rationally disagree about whether or not an action is forbidden if the external state of the world is the same?

If they disagree and they are both being rational, where's the objectivity?

I agree, it doesn't look like there is much in this concept.

I see no reason why "forbidden" in the moral sense should be objective.

Try explaining to someone that something they like should be forbidden because you don't like it.

Okay. "If you don't stop, I will shoot you."

But seriously, WTF? Is that supposed to be an argument that if something is morally forbidden to one person it should be the same for another person?

Comment author: Peterdjones 02 June 2011 02:23:11AM -1 points [-]

I agree, it doesn't look like there is much [objectivity] in this concept.

If you don't go looking for it, you won't find it. As is so ofen the case on LW, that door has been shut without even trying to see what is behind it.

I see no reason why "forbidden" in the moral sense should be objective

Try explaining to someone that something they like should be forbidden because you don't like it.

Okay. "If you don't stop, I will shoot you."

Arbitrary rules enforced with threats of violence is not an optimal outcome for me.

If you have an option other than

a) subjective laissez faire where serial killers are allowed to do their own thing

or

b) Tyranny

I'd be glad to hear it. I know I have.

But seriously, WTF? Is that supposed to be an argument that if something is morally forbidden to one person it should be the same for another person?

Of course. No one should murder. I'm surprised you find that surprising.

Comment author: Nornagest 02 June 2011 06:42:28AM *  0 points [-]

Arbitrary rules enforced with threats of violence is not an optimal outcome for me. If you have an option other than

a) subjective laissez faire where serial killers are allowed to do their own thing

or

b) Tyranny

I'd be glad to hear it. I know I have.

Assuming you're generalized that properly and aren't seriously arguing the most egregious false dichotomy I've seen in weeks, I'm afraid that condemning the set of ethics based on social or personal consequences as "tyranny" amounts to dismissing an entire school of thought on aesthetic grounds. Forgive me if I don't find such a thing particularly convincing.

Comment author: Peterdjones 02 June 2011 12:46:22PM 0 points [-]

As I stated: "I know I have" I don't think a) and b) are the only options either. I don't see why the decision to call force-based ethics "tryrrany" counts as "aesthetic". I don't see why you are so hostile to reason-based ethics. You and various other people seem to think the rational/ojeciive approach to ethics needs to be dispensed with, but you don't say why.

Comment author: Manfred 02 June 2011 05:04:56AM 0 points [-]

If you don't go looking for it, you won't find it.

Rather than chastising me, why not explain how "forbidden" is objective?

Re: shooting people: it was a joke. The WTF was not with respect to shooting people. It was because your demand was a non sequitur.

Comment author: Peterdjones 02 June 2011 12:48:18PM *  -1 points [-]

Rather than chastising me, why not explain how "forbidden" is objective?

For start: are you aware of various (googleablle) standard defenses of metaethical ojectivism?

Comment author: Manfred 05 June 2011 10:33:18PM 1 point [-]

Is there some other place where you have defended metaethical (or even moral) objectivism?

Comment author: Manfred 02 June 2011 10:06:56PM 1 point [-]

I am aware of various defenses and find them all thoroughly lacking, but I doubt I have exhausted even the common possibilities. Go for it.

Comment author: FAWS 02 June 2011 12:52:56AM 0 points [-]

If someone uses "cat" to mean "animal that barks", should everyone then stop using "cat"?

In conversations with that particular person, assuming they can't easily be persuaded to change their usage? Yes, definitely.

Comment author: Peterdjones 02 June 2011 01:05:36AM 0 points [-]

That's hardly an optimal outcome. They are making a mistake, although it seems no one wants to admit that.

Comment author: FAWS 02 June 2011 11:27:47AM 0 points [-]

Obviously the "optimal outcome" would be the easy persuasion I mentioned. Do you think someone misusing that word justifies arbitrary high effort in persuasion, or drastic measures?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit