anon895 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: [deleted] 27 June 2011 07:50:17PM 3 points [-]

Imagine that there is some behavior called "snarf," which 10% of the population thinks is morally acceptable but 90% thinks is abhorrent. The desire of the 10% to perform snarf is going to be outweighed by the desire of the 90% to ban snarf. Thus, society will not move in the direction of legalizing snarf. If that's still too abstract, substitute "gay marriage" for "snarf."

Similarly, meat eaters would probably not agree that vegetarians hold the high ground.

Comment author: Peterdjones 27 June 2011 10:21:01PM *  -1 points [-]

I don't think that a good analogy. i've never heard of a carnivore who thought meat eating was morally better. Their argument is that meat eating is not so much worse that it becomes an ethical no-no, rather than a ethically neutral lifestyle choice. (Morally level ground).

People can even carry on doing something they think is morally wrong on the excuse of akrasia.

And gay marriage is becoming slowly accepted.

Comment author: anon895 28 June 2011 12:37:14AM 2 points [-]

i've never heard of a carnivore who thought meat eating was morally better.

I suspect that you either haven't looked very hard or very long.

Comment author: Peterdjones 28 June 2011 12:43:06AM 0 points [-]

If you have, perhaps you can give me a pointer.

Comment author: anon895 15 September 2012 03:10:18AM 0 points [-]

Recently stumbled into this. It's probably incomplete, but it's something.

Comment author: Blueberry 25 March 2012 07:29:20AM 0 points [-]

Meat eating is morally better because meat dishes are objectively more aesthetically and gastronomically pleasing, and pleasure is a moral good.

Comment author: Blueberry 25 March 2012 06:56:21AM 0 points [-]

Meat eating is morally better because meat dishes are objectively more aesthetically and gastronomically pleasing, and pleasure is a moral good.

Comment author: Blueberry 25 March 2012 06:53:55AM 0 points [-]

Meat eating is morally better because meat dishes are objectively more aesthetically and gastronomically pleasing, and pleasure is a moral good.

Comment author: Blueberry 25 March 2012 06:34:34AM 0 points [-]

Meat eating is morally better because meat dishes are objectively more aesthetically and gastronomically pleasing, and pleasure is a moral good.