Trevor_Caverly comments on Morality open thread - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Will_Newsome 08 July 2012 02:30PM

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

Comments (86)

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

Comment author: Trevor_Caverly 09 July 2012 03:32:30PM 0 points [-]

This is related to moral realism in that I suspect moral realists would be more likely to accept S, and S arguably provides some moral statements that are true. But it's mainly just something I was thinking about while thinking about moral realism.

I don't really know what I'm talking about when I say objective utility, I am just claiming that if such a thing exists/ makes sense to talk about, that it can only depend on the states of individual minds, since each mind's utility can only depend on the state of that mind and nothing outside of the utility of minds can be ethically relevant.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 10 July 2012 05:57:10AM 1 point [-]

This is related to moral realism in that I suspect moral realists would be more likely to accept S, and S arguably provides some moral statements that are true.

I'm a moral realist and I find your claim nearly as absurd as asserting that 2+2=3, and I suspect nearly all moral realists would share my sentiment (even if they wouldn't express it quiet as strongly).