= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Decius comments on [SEQ RERUN] No License To Be Human - 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 (13)
On what basis do you make that assertion?
Also, I don't think that 'true' is a correct descriptor for the One Correct Morality. 'Right' is the best word I think we have for what it is.
Me:
Decius:
The two examples of such systems of what is true that I mentioned in the great-gradparent: mathematics and science.
Neither of those are systems of morality.
I never said they were. My point was that the statement you were implying to be extremely unlikely, is in fact valid for non-moral truths.
That's because we have a physical truth oracle that we can do two use to test the validity of physical truths. If we could objectively observe the morality of an action, then we could have a system of morality as accurate to the perfect one as our system of science is accurate.
Right now I would figure that our system of morality (being roughly as developed as Aristotle's) bears as much relation to the proposed right system as Aristotle's science bears to the actual laws of physics. For the same reasons.
Further, I don't think that according to my current morality, I should switch my beliefs to what is right, even if I could figure out what that is. I'd have to know how to test acts for morality first, but if that test goes against my current judgement I am likely to judge the test flawed, in the same way that I would call a calculator wrong if it consistently told me that 2+2=5