= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Leonhart comments on The Trouble With "Good" - 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 (131)
It seems to me that ANY moral theory is, at its root, emotive. A utilitarian in the form of "do utile things!" decides that maximizing utility feels good, and so is moral. In other words, the argument for the basic axiom of utilitarianism is "Yay utility!"
A non-emotive utilitarianism, or any consequentialist theory, could never go beyond "A implies B." That is, if people do A, the result they will get is B. Without "Yay B!" this is not an argument for doing A.
Am I missing something?
If I am moved by a should-argument to an x-ism, then "Yay x-ism!" is what being moved by that argument feels like, not an additional part of the argument.
Otherwise, aren't you're the tortoise demanding "Yay (Yay X!)!", "Yay (Yay (Yay X!)!)!" and so on?