Vladimir_Nesov comments on A Sketch of an Anti-Realist Metaethics - Less Wrong

16 Post author: Jack 22 August 2011 05:32AM

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

Comments (136)

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

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 24 August 2011 01:40:42AM 0 points [-]

In any case, while there aren't wrong answers there are still immoral ones. There is no fact of the matter about normative ethics- but there are still hypothetical AIs that do evil things.

Then there is fact of the matter about which answers are moral, and we might as well call those that aren't, "incorrect".

Comment author: wedrifid 24 August 2011 04:57:29AM *  4 points [-]

Then there is fact of the matter about which answers are moral, and we might as well call those that aren't, "incorrect".

It seems like a waste to overload the meaning of the word "incorrect" to also include such things as "Fuck off! That doesn't satisfy socially oriented aspects of my preferences. I wish to enforce different norms!"

It really is useful to emphasize a carve in reality between 'false' and 'evil/bad/immoral'. Humans are notoriously bad at keeping the concepts distinct in their minds and allowing 'incorrect' (and related words) to be used for normative claims encourages even more motivated confusion.

Comment author: Jack 24 August 2011 02:14:03AM 1 point [-]

No. Moral properties don't exist. What I'm doing, per the post, when I say "There are immoral answers" is expressing an emotional dissatisfaction to certain answers.

Comment author: lessdazed 24 August 2011 02:53:59AM 0 points [-]

"There are immoral answers" is expressing an emotional dissatisfaction to certain answers.

True.