= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
FAWS 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)
I think you're missing the point of why there isn't a universal code of ethics. 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. 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.
If someone uses "cat" to mean "animal that barks", should everyone then stop using "cat"?
I can't make any sense of that.
In conversations with that particular person, assuming they can't easily be persuaded to change their usage? Yes, definitely.
That's hardly an optimal outcome. They are making a mistake, although it seems no one wants to admit that.
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?