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 [in response to me]: This just amounts to defining should as an abstract computation, and then excluding all minds that calculate a different rule-of-action as "choosing based on something other than morality". In what sense is the morality objective, besides the several senses I've already defined, if it doesn't persuade a paperclip maximizer?
I think my position is this:
If there really was such a thing as an objective morality, it would be the case that only a subset of possible minds could actually discover or be persuaded of that fact.
Presumably, for any objective fact, there are possible minds who could never be convinced of that fact.