Will_Sawin 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.

Comments (316)

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

Comment author: Will_Sawin 02 June 2011 01:48:40AM 1 point [-]

In the first case, would you say that the \Manfred_solution is something or other? You and I mean something different by "solution"?

Of course not.

So why would you do something different for "should"?

Comment author: Manfred 02 June 2011 01:58:56AM *  0 points [-]

Because there's no objective standard against which "should algorithms" can be tested, like there is for the standard for "solution-finding algorithms" If there was no objective standard for solutions, I would absolutely stop talking about "the solution" and start talking about the Manfred_solution.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 02 June 2011 02:02:44AM 0 points [-]

Didn't you say in the other thread that we can disagree about the proper state of the world?

When we do that, what thing are we disagreeing about? It's certainly not a standard, but how can it be subjective?

That's the objective thing I am talking about.

Comment author: Manfred 02 June 2011 04:51:52AM 0 points [-]

Hm. I agree that you can disagree about some world-state that you'd like, but I don't understand how we could move that from "we disagree" to "there is one specific world-state that is the standard." So I stand by "no objective standard" for now.

Comment author: Peterdjones 02 June 2011 12:49:52PM 0 points [-]

I assume you are talking about proper or desirable world-states rather than actual ones.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 02 June 2011 10:50:05AM 0 points [-]

I didn't say it was the standard.

The idea is this.

If we disagree about what world state is best, there has to be some kind of statement I believe and you don't, right? Otherwise, we wouldn't disagree. Some kind of statement like "This world state is best."

Comment author: Manfred 02 June 2011 10:20:36PM *  0 points [-]

But the difference isn't about some measurable property of the world, but about internal algorithms for deciding what to do.

Sure, to the extent that humans are irrational and can pit one desire against another, arguing about how to determine "best" is not a total waste of time, but I don't think that has much bearing on subjectivity.

I'm losing the thread of the conversation at this point.

Comment author: Will_Sawin 02 June 2011 10:32:05PM 0 points [-]

I have no solution to that problem.