Peterdjones comments on Most-Moral-Minority Morality - Less Wrong

-3 Post author: byrnema 27 June 2011 04:28PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (35)

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

Comment author: byrnema 27 June 2011 05:43:15PM 0 points [-]

Also, this system sounds like it impedes moral progress because it disincentives society to change its values over time

I guessed such a strategy would hasten moral progress. I think of moral progress as the morality of a more sensitive minority impressing itself, over time, on the general population. Do you think of examples that don't fit this pattern? But -- for example -- most people I know aren't vegetarian but I think meat eaters could agree that vegetarians have the moral high ground if it were to be a moral issue. Meat eaters folding to become vegetarians would accelerate moral progress if this is what a future moral society would choose.

Comment author: Peterdjones 27 June 2011 10:26:27PM *  0 points [-]

I think moral progress is about more sensitive, and more, or at least averagely, persuasive, morality impressing itself over time. Suffering-in-silence never changed anything. But if at least one aspect of progress is leading toward reason and rationality, moral progress can be built on top of that,, because minorities can then make a reasoned case in a way that doesn't depend on force of numbers or any other kind of force.

Comment author: byrnema 27 June 2011 11:37:03PM 0 points [-]

OK, this is fair in the case of a morality issue having the possibility of being persuasive. In the case of instrumental rather than terminal values, for example, when terminal values are the same. But when moral values are just different, there is no persuading that can be done. Aside from persuasion along the lines I made in my post.

Comment author: Peterdjones 28 June 2011 12:46:37AM 1 point [-]

I think moral norms can be rearranged on the basis of rational norms.

Comment author: byrnema 28 June 2011 02:31:30AM 0 points [-]

What do you mean? (I'm not sure what is meant by 'rearranged' or 'rational norm'.)

Comment author: Peterdjones 28 June 2011 12:31:34PM 1 point [-]

"if you are in favour of X, then to be consistent [rational norm], you should be in favour of Y"

Comment author: byrnema 28 June 2011 01:26:41PM 1 point [-]

Ah, OK, the sentence makes sense to me now.