= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Carinthium comments on Criticisms of the Metaethics - 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 (31)
Other people on this website seem to think I'm not fighting a phantom and that the Metaethics sequence really does seem to talk of an ethics universial to almost all humans, with psycopaths being a rare exception.
One of my attacks on Eliezer is for inconsistency- he argues for consequentialism and a Metaethics of which the logical conclusion is deontology.
How can you describe somebody as "benefiting" unless you define the set of values the perspective of which they benefit from? If it is their own, this is probably not correct. Besides, inconsistency is a kind of problematic metaethics.
And how is it not metaethics?
Feel free to take it up with them :-)
Metaethics is about the status of moral claims. It's about where "should", "good", "right", "wrong" etc. come from, their validity, and so on. What a person should do in any given scenario (as in your questions above) is pure ethics.