= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
whowhowho comments on A confusion about deontology and consequentialism - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (85)
Tom will sacrifice himself if his values lead him too, and not if they don't. He might desert or turn traitor. You would still call that all moral because it is an output of the neurological module you have labelled "moral".
I think it isn't. If someone tries to persuade you that you are wrong about morality, it is useful to consider the "what is morality for" question.
Do you think any of this adds up to any extent of a solution to the philosphical problems of morality/ethics?
Yes!
.
(this space intentionally left blank)
.
.
What specific philosophical problems? Because yes, it does help me clarify my thoughts and figure out better methods of arriving at solutions.
Does it directly provide solutions to some as-yet-unstated philosophical problems? Well, probably not, since the search space of possible philosophical problems related to morality or ethics is pretty, well, huge. The odds that my current writings provide a direct solution to any given random one of them are pretty low.
If the question is whether or not my current belief network contains answers to all philosophical problems pertaining to morality and ethics, then a resounding no. Is it flabbergasted by many of the debates and many of the questions still being asked, and does it consider many of them mysterious and pointless? A resounding yes.
Consequentualism versus deontology, objectivism versus subjectivism, as in the context.
Any would be good Metaethics is sometimes touted as a solve problem on LW.
Oh. Yep.
As I said originally, both of those "X versus Y" and many others are just confusing and mysterious-sounding to me.
They seem like the difference between Car.Accelerate() and AccelerateObject(Car) in programming. Different implementations, some slightly more efficient for some circumstances than others, and both executing the same effective algorithm - the car object goes faster.
Oh. Well, yeah, it does sound kind-of solved.
Judging by the wikipedia description of "meta-ethics" and the examples it gives, I find the meta-ethics sequence on LW gives me more than satisfactory answers to all of those questions.
You previously said something much more definite-sounding:
"I believe that there is an objective system of verifiable, moral facts which can be true or false"
..although it has turned out you meant something like "there are objective facts about de facto moral reasoning".
The alleged solution seems as elusive as the Snark to me.