This algorithm for sorting "ought" is like a definition - a definition is something we can use to sort objects. But it's not like any old definition - this definition cannot be guaranteed to be smaller than the brain of the agent.
Substituting "definition" for "meaning" isn't going to make much difference.
Or to put it another way, by "definition" I mean the full specification of a cloud in idea-space.
- there is a complicated bunch of neurons that takes in sensory information and outputs moral decisions. There is no reason why this complicated bunch of neurons should be exactly identical for each person.
No. But the correct way to handle that theory is to say that different people have different theories/intuitions. Otherwise you fall into the trap of saying there are no real disagreements about morality, or that serial killer morality is perfectly valid because serial can make up their own meaning definition of "moral".
Anyhow, back to some sort of topic: You seem to be saying that Parfit is not claiming his theory as any sort of One True theory. Is this accurate?
Surely anyone who argues for a theory is saying that.
Anyhow, back to some sort of topic: You seem to be saying that Parfit is not claiming his theory as any sort of One True theory. Is this accurate?
Surely anyone who argues for a theory is saying that.
I dunno, you could just write down your theory to get it out there, maybe to convince other humans (which is possible, us being imperfect) as a means to spreading your morality.
...the correct way to handle that theory is to say that different people have different theories/intuitions. Otherwise you fall into the trap of saying there are no real disagreemen
Derek Parfit has published his second book, "On What Matters". Here are reviews by Tyler Cowen and Peter Singer.