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.

BerryPick6 comments on Morality Isn't Logical - Less Wrong Discussion

19 Post author: Wei_Dai 26 December 2012 11:08PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (85)
Tags: philosophy morality logic

Comments (85)

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

Comment author: BerryPick6 27 December 2012 12:59:51PM 1 point [-]

In the field of philosophy, from my limited knowledge, I think that these discussions lead to conclusions that we need to believe as "truth", whether or not they are supported by evidence (i.e. John Rawl's "Original Position").

I'm curious as to why you referenced Rawl's work in this context. It's not apparent to me how Justice as Fairness is relevant here.

Comment author: ddxxdd 28 December 2012 01:16:00AM -1 points [-]

I referenced him because I recall that he comes to a very strong conclusion- that a moral society should have agreed-upon laws based on the premise of the "original position". He was the first philosopher that came to mind when I was trying to think of examples of a hard statement that is neither a "proposition" to be explored, nor the conclusion from an observable fact.

Comment author: BerryPick6 28 December 2012 02:01:01PM 0 points [-]

I mean, I'm pretty sure his conclusion is a "proposition." It has premises, and I could construct it logically if you wanted.

In fact, I don't understand his position to be "that a moral society should have agreed-upon laws" at all, but rather his use of the original position is an attempt to isolate and discover the principles of distributive justice, and that's really his bottom line.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit