= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Wix comments on Life Extension versus Replacement - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (98)
When our intuitions in a particular case contradict the moral theory we thought we held, we need some justification for amending the moral theory other than "I want to."
Well if you view moral theories as if they were scientific hypothesis, you could reason in the following way: If a moral theory/hypothesis makes a counter intuitive prediction you could 1) reject the your intuition or 2) reject the hypothesis ("I want to") 3) revise your hypothesis.
It would be practical if one could actually try out an moral theory, but I don't see how one could go about doing that. . .
Right -- I don't claim any of my moral intuitions to be true or correct; I'm an error theorist, when it comes down to it.
But I do want my intuitions to be consistent with each other. So if I have the intuition that utility is the only thing I value for its own sake, and I have the intuition that Life Extension is better than Replacement, then something's gotta give.