= 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)
Why must all disagreements be disagreements about the state of the world?
It seems to me like there are two kinds of disagreements, positive disagreements about the state of the world, and normative disagreements about the proper state of the world.
Nothing blows up when I believe that.
Knowing the fact that you just stated does not make fighting wars over morality seem less reasonable. In fact, it makes them seem more reasonable. Do you disagree? Do you think it makes sense to fight wars over a definition?
Sure. But if people start arguing over what's right, they should argue over the proper state of the world, not over what's "right."
I don't see much difference between "right" and "proper".
He could also mean that we have to argue about states of the world.
But what else would we argue about, normatively? Abstract concepts, say, like "drugs are bad". But then I would agree with him.
So I think we agree.
Again, I don't follow you.
So perhaps he is saying that people should argue over the proper state of the world and not over the right XYZ, for some concept XYZ.
For instance, people should argue over the proper state of the world, not the right flavor of ice cream.
That is a true statement, there is certainly no objective right flavor of ice cream.
It is the most reasonable explanation I can come up with.