nshepperd 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)

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

Comment author: Peterdjones 01 June 2011 06:37:15PM 5 points [-]

the Austere Metaethicist replies:

"Tell me what you mean by 'right', and I will tell you what is the right thing to do."

That is of course, not what is right, but what she thinks is right. So far, so subjective.

You may not know what you mean by 'right.' But let's not stop there. Here, let me come alongside you and help decode the cognitive algorithms that generated your question in the first place, and then we'll be able to answer your question. Then we can tell you what the right thing to do is.

Again, that is not the right thing, that is just what she thinks. An Objective metaethicist could answer the question what is right.

But moral terms and value terms are about what we want.

No: they are value terms about what we should want and be and do.

And the "we" is important here. Your metaethicists are like therapsists or life coaches or personal shoppers who advise people how to make their individual lives spiffier. But moral action is not solipsistic: moral choices affect other people. That's why we can't stop at "whatever you think is right is right". I don't want one of your metaethicists telling my neighbour how to be a better serial killer.

Comment author: nshepperd 02 June 2011 02:26:18AM 0 points [-]

You're missing the point. The empathic metaethicist is trying to figure out what she means by 'right'. Assuming she's a well-adjusted human being, that's probably the same as what you mean by 'right', so with any luck we'll work out what you mean by 'right' as well (and hence, what "is right"). But we're not asking Alex what she thinks peterdjones.getMeaning("right").getExtension() is.

Comment author: Peterdjones 02 June 2011 02:31:25AM 0 points [-]

That isn't a good theoretical argument that "right" has only a subjective definition, and it isn't practically as good as being able make individual notions of moral rightness more correct, where they need fixing.

Comment author: nshepperd 02 June 2011 03:50:54AM 1 point [-]

Whatever you mean by "only a subjective definition", I'm probably not trying to argue that.

Do you think you mean something other than what is right when you say "right"? If not, then replace "Alex" with "Peterdjones". Do you still think the empathic metaethicist is going to get the wrong answer when they try to figure out what you mean by "right"?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit