Further, I happen to be a philosophy student right now, and I'm worried that the ideas presented in my ethics classes are misguided and "conceptually corrupt" that is, the focus seems to be on defining terms over and over again, as opposed to taking account of real effects of moral ideas in the actual world.
Second, how can I go about my ethics courses without going insane?
Good luck. Nearly everything I've seen written on morality is horribly wrong. I took a few ethics classes, and they are mostly junk. Maybe things are better in proper philosophy, but I doubt it.
as well as some of nyan's posts, but I felt even more confused afterwards.
That's worrying. Any particulars?
a guide as to which reductionist moral theories approximate what LW rationalists tend to think are correct.
If you mean things like "utilitarianism" and such, don't bother, no one has come up with one that works. I think the best approach is to realize that moral philosophy is a huge problem that hasn't been solved and no one knows how to solve (I'm "working" on it, as are many others), and all "solutions" right now are jumping the gun, and involve fundamental confusions. The best we have is a few hueristics that improve our moral intuitions, and our intuitions themselves. Eliezer's ethical injunctions are useful, thinking about consequences of actions is useful, remembering not to reduce all of morality to a few simple rules is useful, finding out what true morality feels like, and how to invoke your moral machinery is useful. Solving problems relevent to morality, like decision theory, is useful.
Good luck, though.
Good luck. Nearly everything currently written on morality is horribly wrong. I took a few ethics classes, and they are mostly junk. Maybe things are better in proper philosophy, but I doubt it.
I have a hunch things are a good bit better in proper philosophy than you think. Admittedly, most intro and medium level courses regarding ethics are pretty terrible (this is obviously only from personal experience.) If I had to make a guess as to why that is, it'd probably be for the same reason I think most of the rest of philosophy courses could be better: too much focus on history.
Hi everyone,
If this has been covered before, I apologize for the clutter and ask to be redirected to the appropriate article or post.
I am increasingly confused about normative theories. I've read both Eliezer's and Luke's meta ethics sequences as well as some of nyan's posts, but I felt even more confused afterwards. Further, I happen to be a philosophy student right now, and I'm worried that the ideas presented in my ethics classes are misguided and "conceptually corrupt" that is, the focus seems to be on defining terms over and over again, as opposed to taking account of real effects of moral ideas in the actual world.
I am looking for two things: first, a guide as to which reductionist moral theories approximate what LW rationalists tend to think are correct. Second, how can I go about my ethics courses without going insane?
Sorry if this seems overly aggressive, I am perhaps wrongfully frustrated right now.
Jeremy