You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

TimS comments on Open Thread: December 2011 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Tripitaka 01 December 2011 06:59PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (80)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (80)

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

Comment author: TimS 16 December 2011 02:37:10AM *  0 points [-]

Just a quick definition here: When people say moral theory, they mean the procedure(s) they use to generate their terminal values (i.e. the ends you are trying to achieve). Instrumental values (i.e. how to achieve your goals) are much less troublesome.

if moral theories are completely unfalsifiable, then how do we compare them to discover which is better ?

I'm not sure that the consensus here is that all moral theories are unfalsifiable (although I believe that is a fact about moral theories). If theories are unfalsifiable, then comparison from some "objective" position is conceptually problematic (which I expect is why politics is the mind-killer).

And if we can't determine which moral theories are better than others, what's the point in talking about them at all ?

We still make decisions, and I think we are right to say that the decisions are "moral decisions" because they have moral consequences. Thus, one reason to discuss moral theories is to determine [as a descriptive matter] what morality one follows, in some attempt to be internally consistent.

Comment author: Bugmaster 16 December 2011 03:24:05AM 0 points [-]

When people say moral theory, they mean the procedure(s) they use to generate their terminal values (i.e. the ends you are trying to achieve).

Understood, thanks.

I'm not sure that the consensus here is that all moral theories are unfalsifiable (although I believe that is a fact about moral theories).

Let's go with what you believe, then, and if the consensus wants to disagree, they can chime in :-)

Thus, one reason to discuss moral theories is to determine [as a descriptive matter] what morality one follows, in some attempt to be internally consistent

Are you saying that moral theories are descriptive, and not prescriptive ? In this case, discussing moral theories is similar to discussing human psychology, or cognitive science, or possibly sociology. That makes sense to me, though I think that most people would disagree. But, again, if this is what you believe as well, then we are in agreement, and the consensus can chime in if it feels like arguing.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit