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.

DaFranker comments on A confusion about deontology and consequentialism - Less Wrong Discussion

5 [deleted] 11 February 2013 07:19PM

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

Comments (85)

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

Comment author: DaFranker 13 February 2013 08:35:01PM -1 points [-]

Consequentualism versus deontology, objectivism versus subjectivism, as in the context.

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.

Any would be good Metaethics is sometimes touted as a solve problem on LW.

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.

Comment author: whowhowho 13 February 2013 08:46:08PM *  1 point [-]

As I said originally, both of those "X versus Y" and many others are just confusing and mysterious-sounding to me.

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".

Oh. Well, yeah, it does sound kind-of solved.

The alleged solution seems as elusive as the Snark to me.