= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peterdjones comments on Logical Pinpointing - 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 (338)
Human artifacts are generally created to do jobs, eg hammers
Tool. Like i said.
Does that mean you have a better tool in mind, or that interaction don't need regulation?
If I put a hammer under a table to keep the table from wobbling, am I using a tool or not? If the hammer is the only object within range that is the right size for the table, and there is no task which requires a weighted lever, is the hammer intended to balance the table simply by virtue of being the best tool for the job?
Fit-for-task is a different quality than purpose. Hammers are useful tools to drive nails, but poor tools for determining what nails should be driven. There are many nails that should not be driven, despite the presence of hammers.
f you can't bang in nails with it, it isnt a hammer. What you can do with it isn't relevant.
???
So we can judge things morally wrong, because we have a tool to do the job, but we shouldn't in many cases, because...? (And what kind of "shouldn't" is that?)
By that, the absence of nails makes the weighted lever not a hammer. I think that hammerness is intrinsic and not based on the presence of nails; likewise morality can exist when there is only one active moral agent.
The metaphor was that you could, in principle, drive nails literally everywhere you can see, including in your brain. Will you agree that one should not drive nails literally everywhere, but only in select locations, using the right type of nail for the right location? If you don't, this part of the conversation is not salvageable.
What is that supposed to be analgous to? If you have a workable system of ethics, then it doens't make judgments willy nilly, anymore than a workable system of logic allows quodlibet.
(Edited for explicit analogy.)
Basically, it's not because you have a morality (hammer) that happens to be convenient for making laws and rules of interactions (balancing the table) that morality is necessarily the best and intended tool for making rules and that morality itself tells you what you should make laws about or that you even should make laws in the first place.
Moral rules and legal laws aren't the same thing. Modern socities don't legislate against adultery, although they may consider it against the moral rules.
If you are going to override a moral rule, (ie neither punish nor even disaprove of) an action, what would you override it in favour of? What would count more?
I don't see where I've implied that one would override a moral rule. What I'm saying is that most current moral systems are not good enough to even make rational rules about some types of actions in the first place, and that in the long run we would regret doing so after doing some metaethics.
Uncertainty and the lack of reliability of our own minds and decision systems are key points of the above.
I would refuse to allow moral judgement on things which lie outside of the realm of appropriate morality. Modern societies don't legislate against adultery because consensual sex is amoral. Using moral guidelines to determine which people are allowed to have consensual sex is like using a hammer to open a window.
Oh, that was your concern. I has no bearing on what I was saying.
Can you provide an example of a moral rule that you believe might be/has been overridden, then?