= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on A Defense of Naive Metaethics - 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 (294)
One more way to describe this idea. I ask, "What is morality?", and you say, "I don't know, but I use this brain thing here to figure out facts about it; it errs sometimes, but can provide limited guidance. Why do I believe this "brain" is talking about morality? It says it does, and it doesn't know of a better tool for that purpose presently available. By the way, it's reporting that <long list of conditions> are morally relevant, and is probably right."
Where do you get "is probably right" from? I don't think you can get that if you take an outside view and consider how often a human brain is right when it reports on philosophical matters in a similar state of confusion...
Salt to taste, the specific estimate is irrelevant to my point, so long as the brain is seen as collecting at least some moral information, and not defining the whole of morality. The level of certainty in brain's moral judgment won't be stellar, but more reliable for simpler judgments. Here, I referred "morally relevant", which is a rather weak matter-of-priority kind of judgment, as opposed to deciding which of the given options are better.
Beautiful. I would draw more attention to the "Why.... ? It says it does" bit, but that seems right.