Vladimir_Nesov 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: Vladimir_Nesov 09 June 2011 09:11:37AM 1 point [-]

On my naturalist view, the fact that makes (a) but not (b) normatively justifying would be some fact about how the goal we're discussing at the moment is saving human lives, not saving mosquito lives.

What if you actually should be discussing saving of mosquito lives, but don't, because humans are dumb?

Comment author: lukeprog 09 June 2011 09:41:16AM 0 points [-]

I think this is a change of subject, but... what do you mean by 'actually should'?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 09 June 2011 09:43:50AM 3 points [-]

what do you mean by 'actually should'?

No idea.

Comment author: lukeprog 09 June 2011 04:06:21PM *  0 points [-]

I take you to mean "what would maximize Luke's utility function" (knowing that 'utility function' is probably just a metaphor when talking about humans) when you say "you actually should..." Of course, my 'utility function' is unknown to both of us.

In that case, it would remain true in our hypothetical scenario that I should-HumanLivesAreGood donate to VillageReach (assuming they're a good charity for saving human lives), while I should-UtilityFunctionLuke donate to SaveTheMosquitos.

(Sorry about formatting; LW comments don't know how to use underscores, apparently.)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit