Subjectivism.
Really? In that case, I'm strongly against using that, because the term "subjectivism" seems ill-defined, not very illuminating, and has a bunch of wrong connotations. In particular, as I read him, Eliezer does think that we are all talking about the same thing, that we have a shared referential intention, and that disagreement is therefor substantial and about the truth-value of a definite proposition that has a truth-value. (Which is precisely the reason why I think his theory is wrong.)
The consequentialism is of the utilitarian variety , which isn't particularly compatible with subjectivism/indexicality. So there's two theories.
Of course; one is a metaethical theory, the other is an ethical theory. But I think the two are very compatible, simply because they're orthogonal.
really? In that case, I'm strongly against using that, because the term "subjectivism" seems ill-defined,
By whom? It seems well-defined by professional philosophes to me.
not very illuminating, and has a bunch of wrong connotations
To whom? It is not a force of nature that makes words have connotations. The individual brings whatever connotations they bring.
...In particular, as I read him, Eliezer does think that we are all talking about the same thing, that we have a shared referential intention, and that disagreement is therefor substanti
Another month has passed and here is a new rationality quotes thread. The usual rules are: