Allan_Crossman comments on The Meaning of Right - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (147)
Eliezer: It's because when I say right, I am referring to a 1-place function
Like many others, I fall over at this point. I understand that Morality_8472 has a definite meaning, and therefore it's a matter of objective fact whether any act is right or wrong according to that morality. The problem is why we should choose it over Morality_11283.
Of course you can say, "according to Morality_8472, Morality_8472 is correct" but that's hardly helpful.
Ultimately, I think you've given us another type of anti-realist relativism.
Eliezer: But if you were stepping outside the human and hoping for moral arguments that would persuade any possible mind, even a mind that just wanted to maximize the number of paperclips in the universe, then sorry - the space of possible mind designs is too large to permit universally compelling arguments.
It's at least conceivable that there could be objective morality without universally compelling moral arguments. I personally think there could be an objective foundation for morality, but I wouldn't expect to persuade a paperclip maximizer.