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: Eugine_Nier 06 July 2012 04:31:46AM 0 points [-]

That reduces it to the statement "our common sense tells us so, you can't prove us wrong, we don't have to prove ourselves right".

This is ultimately the case for all statements.

Comment author: DanArmak 06 July 2012 11:04:02AM 0 points [-]

I fail to see the relevance. Humans convince each other of many things all the time. If we couldn't, we wouldn't be here on this site! There are minds "out there" in mind-space whom we couldn't convince, but that doesn't mean there are such human minds, because humans are quite similar to one another.

Are you seriously suggesting humanity is divided into moral realists and anti-realists, and no realist can possibly explain to me or convince me of their position and even talking about it is pointless?

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 07 July 2012 06:31:17AM 0 points [-]

I fail to see the relevance. Humans convince each other of many things all the time. If we couldn't, we wouldn't be here on this site!

Yes, and those things include moral statements.

Are you seriously suggesting humanity is divided into moral realists and anti-realists, and no realist can possibly explain to me or convince me of their position and even talking about it is pointless?

No, because most if not all humans who call themselves moral non-realists are actually moral realists who believe themselves to be moral non-realists.

Comment author: DanArmak 07 July 2012 12:48:14PM 0 points [-]

Yes, and those things include moral statements.

Exactly. So I'm asking to be convinced - I'm asking for the evidence that convinced others to be moral realists. So far no such evidence has been given.

most if not all humans who call themselves moral non-realists are actually moral realists who believe themselves to be moral non-realists.

Why do you think so? Where do I act as if I believed in moral realism? I am not aware of such.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 07 July 2012 11:06:20PM 0 points [-]

Why do you think so? Where do I act as if I believed in moral realism? I am not aware of such.

This is similar to the way people who claim to be physical non-realists still manage to avoid walking out of high story windows. If someone punched you or stole your stuff, I strongly suspect you'd object in moral terms.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 July 2012 04:11:25AM 0 points [-]

If someone punched you or stole your stuff, I strongly suspect you'd object in moral terms.

To me, this is a point in favor of anti-realism. I hardly react at all when strangers get punched and worse (as we speak, probably). Tragedy is when I cut my finger.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 10 July 2012 07:51:17AM 0 points [-]

Ethical egoism is still a form of moral realism.

(Disclaimer: I don't necessarily endorse full ethical egoism.)

Comment author: DanArmak 07 July 2012 11:16:55PM 0 points [-]

Of course I would, and that doesn't make me a moral realist. I would say: by the morals that I feel, and most other people also feel and agree on, the person who assaulted me acted immorally. Nothing to do with objective moral rules: just rules that I and most other people feel to be moral and agree on.

More importantly, if some people in my place would appeal to "objective/factual morals", that is not in itself evidence for the existence of such objective morals. Since when I ask them (you) how they perceive these objective morals, how they even know them to exist, I receive so far no answer.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 09 July 2012 03:09:46AM 0 points [-]

Of course I would, and that doesn't make me a moral realist. I would say: by the morals that I feel, and most other people also feel and agree on, the person who assaulted me acted immorally.

What if I said that by the morals I feel it's ok for me to hit you? You could answer that most people disagree with me, but I suspect you'd object to being punched even if, e.g., you belonged to a low status group that people thought it was ok to abuse.

Comment author: DanArmak 09 July 2012 10:32:13AM 0 points [-]

I live by my morals, whether or not others share them. This doesn't change the fact that they are my morals, a feature of my brain state, and not some sort of objective independently existing morals. It's exactly the same situation as saying that I feel that my girlfriend is beautiful whether or not others agree, but that doesn't mean there's an objective standard of beauty in the universe that doesn't depend on observers.

If I belonged to a low status group that most people had no moral issues with abusing, then I would keep saying they behave immorally according to my views, and they would keep ignoring my words and abusing me. I fail to see what about this situation suggests that I behave as if I believe in realist morals.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 10 July 2012 07:47:33AM -1 points [-]

If I belonged to a low status group that most people had no moral issues with abusing, then I would keep saying they behave immorally according to my views, and they would keep ignoring my words and abusing me. I fail to see what about this situation suggests that I behave as if I believe in realist morals.

And you would really be ok with them living by their morals and abusing you?

Comment author: DanArmak 10 July 2012 10:10:04AM 0 points [-]

Of course I would not be OK. I would want them to change their behavior and I would try to change it. This would be because of my preferences as to how people should behave towards me. These preferences don't exist independently of me. Morals are a special kind of preferences.

Saying "there exist someone's morals but there do not exist morals by themselves" is exactly the same as saying "there exist someone's preferences but there do not exist preferences by themselves".