= 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)
What are your alternatives (at this level of detail)? If I could be using two different definitions, ought1 and ought2, then I expect there are distinguishing arguments that form a decision problem about which of the two I should've been using, which in turn determines which of these definitions is the one.
Well there are cases when I should be using two different words.
For instance, if morality is only one component of the correct decision procedure, then MoralOught and CorrectOught are two different things.
But you're not talking about those types of cases, right?
Don't understand what you said. Probably not.
Well, suppose that sometimes, depending on context cues, I use "ought" to mean "paperclip-maximizing", "prime-pile-maximizing", and "actually-ought".
There's nothing wrong about the first two definitions, they're totally reasonable definitions a word might have, they just shouldn't be confused with the third definition, which specifies correct actions.