Eugine_Nier comments on [SEQ RERUN] No License To Be Human - Less Wrong

2 Post author: MinibearRex 08 August 2012 07:26AM

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

Comments (13)

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

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 13 August 2012 09:46:31PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: Decius 13 August 2012 11:14:04PM *  1 point [-]

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