Garren 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: Garren 07 June 2011 01:33:56PM 0 points [-]

Are you sure that people mean different things by 'right' and 'wrong', or are they just using different criteria to judge whether something is right or wrong.

What could 'right' and 'wrong' mean, beyond the criteria used to make the judgment?

It's done by changing the values of the majority..by showing the majority that they ought (in a rational sense of ought)) think differently.

Sure, if you're talking about appealing to people to change their non-fundamental values to be more in line with their fundamental values. But I've still never heard how reason can have anything to say about fundamental values.

Does it work or not? Have majorities not been persuaded that its wrong, if convenient, to oppress minorities?

So far as I can tell, only by reasoning from their pre-existing values.

Comment author: Peterdjones 07 June 2011 02:14:00PM *  -1 points [-]

What could 'right' and 'wrong' mean, beyond the criteria used to make the judgment?

"Should be rewarded" and "should be punished". If there was evidence of people saying that the good should be punished, that would indicate that some people are disagreeing about the meaning of good/right. Otherwise, disagreements are about criteria for assigning the term.

So far as I can tell, only by reasoning from their pre-existing values.

But not for all of them (since some of then get discarded) and not only from moral values (since people need to value reason to be reasoned with).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit