Peterdjones comments on 'Is' and 'Ought' and Rationality - Less Wrong

2 Post author: BobTheBob 05 July 2011 03:53AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (70)
Tags: rationality naturalism oughts

Comments (70)

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

Comment author: Peterdjones 07 July 2011 08:40:23PM 1 point [-]

This latter complicated statement will not mean what the first statement means, and won't do the job required in discussing rationality of the first statement. The latter statement will be an elaborate description; what's needed is a prescription.

Do you accept that a description of what an ideal agent does is equivalent to a prescription of what a non-ideal agent (of the same goals) should do?

Comment author: BobTheBob 08 July 2011 04:31:38AM 0 points [-]

This is a nice way of putting things. As long as we're clear that what makes it a prescription is the fact that it is an ideal for the non-ideal agent.

Do you think this helps the cause of naturalism?

Comment author: Peterdjones 08 July 2011 04:27:27PM 0 points [-]

Yes.Well, it helps with my crusade to show that objective morality can be based on pure reason (abstract reasoning is rather apt for dealing with ideals; it is much easier to reason about a perfect circle than a wobbly, hand-drawn one).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit