PhilGoetz comments on The Trouble With "Good" - Less Wrong

83 Post author: Yvain 17 April 2009 02:07AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (131)
Tags: ethics utilitarianism

Comments (131)

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

Comment author: PhilGoetz 17 April 2009 07:31:19PM 1 point [-]

To be annoying, but "good" does have different uses. The opposite of moral "good" is "evil" the opposite of quality "good" is "poor" and the opposite of correctness "good" is "incorrect". These opposites can all use the word "bad" but they mean completely different things.

He knows that. He's pointing out the flaws with that model.

Comment author: MrHen 17 April 2009 09:32:47PM 1 point [-]

But we are happy using the word "good" for all of them, and it doesn't feel like we're using the same word in several different ways, the way it does when we use "right" to mean both "correct" and "opposite of left". It feels like they're all just the same thing.

This is from his article. Speaking for myself, when I use the word "good" I use it in several different ways in much the same way I do when I use the word "right".

Comment author: Relsqui 04 October 2010 03:14:35AM 0 points [-]

I think the point was that we do use the word in multiple ways, but those ways don't feel as different as the separate meanings of "right." The concepts are similar enough that people conflate them. If you never do this, that's awesome, but the post posits that many people do, and I agree with it.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit