= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on The Moral Void - 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 (105)
The idea of a Tablet that simply states moral truths without explanation (without even the backing of an authority, as in divine command theory) is a form of ethical objectivism that is hard to defend, but without generalising to all ethical objectivism. For instance, if objectivism works in a more math-like way, the a counterintuitive moral truth would be backed by a step-by-step argument leading the reader to the surprising conclusion in the way the reader of maths is led to surprising conclusions such as the Banach Tarski paradox. The Tablet argument shows, if anything, that truth without justification is a problem, but that is not unique to ethical objectivism.
For instance, consider a mathematical Tablet that lists a series of surprising theorems without justification. That reproduces the problem without bringing in ethics at all.
How do you get a statement with "shoulds" in it using pure logical inference if none of your axioms (the laws of physics) have "shoulds" in them? And if the laws of physics have "shoulds" in them, how is that different from having a tablet?
How do you get a statement about how you should build a bridge so it doesn't fall down?
Presumably, you get such a statement from the laws of physics, which allow you deduce things about quantities like force, stress, gravity, etc. I see no evidence that the laws of physics allow you to deduce similar things about morality.
No, because the axioms of physics do not contain the word "bridge."
(Also, note that TheAncientGeek deliberately included the word "should" in his bridge statement, so you just effectively contradicted yourself by saying that a statement involving "should" can be deduced from physics.)
You seem to have conceded that you can get shoulds out of descriptions. The trick seems to be that if there is something you want to achieve, there are things you should and should not do to achieve it.
If the purpose of morality is, for instance, to achieve cooperative outcomes, and avoid conflict over resources, then there are things people should and shouldn't do to support that. Although something like game theory , rather than physics, would supply the details
.