DanArmak comments on Rationality Quotes July 2012 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: RobertLumley 04 July 2012 12:29AM

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

Comments (466)

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

Comment author: DanArmak 02 July 2012 10:48:08PM 0 points [-]

As I said: "Only specific applications of tools have moral status." The action of dripping liquid into my eyes has moral status. The chemical formula of the liquid, whatever it may be, does not. The only chemistry really relevant to morality is the chemistry of our brains that assign moral status to other things.

I know other formulations of "what is morally significant" are possible and sometimes seem useful, but they also seem to lead to the conclusion that everything is morally significant - e.g. assigning moral value to entire universe-states - which does away with the useful concept of some smaller thing being morally significant vs. amoral.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 03 July 2012 01:14:23AM 1 point [-]

The only chemistry really relevant to morality is the chemistry of our brains that assign moral status to other things.

Right. Which is the same as the point I was originally making: At least one chemical process has moral significance.

Comment author: DanArmak 03 July 2012 08:14:05AM 7 points [-]

That's true. It seems I've been arguing past you or at a strawman. Sorry.