= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MarsColony_in10years comments on The Bedrock of Morality: Arbitrary? - 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 (113)
Why "ought" vs. "p-ought" instead of "h-ought" vs. "p-ought"?
Sure, it might just be terminology. But change
"So which of these two perspectives do I choose? The human one, of course; not because it is the human one, but because it is right."
to
"So which of these two perspectives do I choose? The human one, of course; not because it is the human one, but because it is h-right."
and the difference between "because it is the human one" and "because it is h-right" sounds a lot less convincing.
If I see a toddler in the path of a boulder rolling downhill, I don't ask myself "should I help the bolder, or the toddler?" and conclude "the toddler, because it is the human one."
If I were to even pause and ask myself a question, it would be "what should I do?" and the answer would be "save the toddler, because it is h-right".
Perhaps h-right is "just the human perspective", but that's not the reason I save the toddler. Similarly, the bolder rolls downhill because F=G(m1m2)/r^2, not because it is what boulders do. It is what boulders do, but that's different from the question of why they do what they do.