= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peterdjones comments on Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided - 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 (179)
It doesn't follow from that that you have no interest in praise and blame.
Isn't A interested in the actions of B and C that impinge on A?
Yes, and it doesn't follow that because I am interested in praise and blame, I must hold other people to the same standard I hold myself. I said right there in the passage you quoted that I do in fact hold other people to some standard, it's just not the same as I use for myself.
Yes as a matter of epistemology and normative ethics, but not as a matter of metaethics.
Your metaethics treats everyone as acting but not acted on?
A is interested in:
1) The state of the world. This is important information for deciding anything.
2) A's possible actions, and their consequences. "Their consequences" == expected future state of the world for each action.
"actions of B and C that impinge on A" is a subset of 1) and "giving praise and blame" is a subset of 2). "Influencing the actions of B and C" is also a subset of 2).
1) The state of the world. This is important information for deciding anything. 2) A's possible actions, and their consequences. "Their consequences" == expected future state of the world for each action.
Or, briefly "The Union of A and not-A"
or, more briefly still:
"Everything".