I found myself extremely confused by nyan's recent posts on the matter,
This is bad. What confused you? Anything you want explained?
Actually, I think the most recent one is very useful. I especially like the idea of measuring utilities as probabiities (re: whales vs orgasms.)
I found the original whale one you linked above to be the most confusing, because it highlights issues without explaining how to go about measuring "awesomeness". I suppose you are right though in that nobody really knows what is correct.
Note, when I say I am confused, I don't mean that your writting in particular caused confusion. More, it is that with so many different opinions and sources of ideas, I am having difficulty deciding what I ought to think to be true.
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