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.

Cyan comments on How to deal with non-realism? - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: loup-vaillant 22 May 2012 01:58PM

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

Comments (168)

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

Comment author: TimS 25 May 2012 02:19:53AM 0 points [-]

Sure, they believed that the bourgeois value system functioned to maintain the bourgeois status quo (isn't that true?). But you seem to be saying that disagreeing with the bourgeois value system is a moral anti-realist position. There's nothing in the definition of moral realism that says particular moral realists must agree about what is right.

Suppose someone said Islam isn't a religion because Muslims say Christianity is a false religion. That's a misleading usage of the word "religion." It's just a clearer usage of "religion" to say that Islam and Christianity are religions with conflicting tenets. Likewise, bourgeois ideology and communist ideology are both value systems that assert they are reflections of the correct moral facts, and they clearly disagree on the content of moral facts.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 May 2012 02:44:20AM -1 points [-]

Sure, they believed that the bourgeois value system functioned to maintain the bourgeois status quo (isn't that true?)

Isn't there only one status quo, and don't all mainstream value systems function to maintain it? For better or worse.

Comment author: TimS 25 May 2012 12:35:24PM *  -1 points [-]

It is true that there is (at most) one status quo at a time. Further, I would expect the dominant morality of a particular moment to support the status quo, but that doesn't imply that only one moral system is believed at any particular time.

I don't know what you mean by asserting that there is only one status quo - it seems false. The status quo in France in 1788 wasn't the same as the status quo in France in 1791.

Further, there's nothing inherent in the concept of a morality that requires it agree that the current state of affairs is best. Mencius Moldbug has a morality, and he thinks the way western nations run their affairs is filled with nonsense.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 May 2012 01:36:22PM 0 points [-]

Sure, one status quo at a time. But you didn't label you didn't label "status quo" with a time period, you labeled it with "bourgeois."