cunning_moralist comments on Reasonable Requirements of any Moral Theory - Less Wrong

-1 Post author: TheSurvivalMachine 10 October 2016 08:48PM

Comments (10)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DanArmak 11 October 2016 11:32:50AM *  0 points [-]

I'm confused. Is it normal to regard all possible acts and decisions as morally significant, and to call a universal decision theory a moral theory?

What meaning does the word "moral" even have at that point?

Comment author: cunning_moralist 12 October 2016 12:14:23PM 1 point [-]

Nobody is calling “a universal decision theory a moral theory”. According to hedonistic utilitarianism, and indeed all consequentialism, all actions are morally significant.

‘Moral’ means regarding opinions of which actions ought to be performed.

Comment author: DanArmak 12 October 2016 01:32:43PM 1 point [-]

So "morals" is used to mean the same as "values" or "goals" or "preferences". It's not how I'm used to encountering the word, and it's confusing in comparison to how it's used in other contexts. Humans have separate moral and a-moral desires (and beliefs, emotions, judgments, etc) and when discussing human behavior, as opposed to idealized or artificial behavior, the distinction is useful.

Of course every field or community is allowed to redefine existing terminology, and many do. But now, whenever I encounter the word "moral", I'll have to remind myself I may be misunderstanding the intended meaning (in either direction).