= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on Litany of Instrumentarski - 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 (43)
Suffice it to say that I don't agree. Having a consistent definition of exists would help immeasurably in clarifying positions on the moral realism / anti-realism debate. And you don't do a good job of noting when you are using a word in a non-standard way (and your other interlocutors are not great at noticing that your usage is non-standard).
You do realize that the standard understandings in the moral realism debate would say that referencing wrongness to a particular (non-universal) source of judgment is an anti-realist position?
Saying that right and wrong are meaningful only given a particular social context is practically the textbook definition of moral relativism, which is an anti-realist position.
That's a position, not an argument.
Boooring... I care about accurate models, not choosing between two equally untestable positions.
Why should I care what a particular school of untestables says?
Again, I don't care about the labels, I care about accurate beliefs.