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.

Manfred comments on Questions for Moral Realists - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: peter_hurford 13 February 2013 05:44AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (110)

Comments (110)

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

Comment author: Manfred 16 February 2013 12:44:35AM 0 points [-]

I think it's a mistake for someone to leap from talking about "my morality" to "morality (in general)". Perhaps this is what projectivists get at?

I have no clue if it's what projectivists get at, so you may want to elaborate :P

Because humans have some abstract things that influence our actions, and morality, as written about by humans, is used to describe human actions. I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' puddle: "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it?'"

I don't quite understand your use of the analogy.

I'm implying that people first noticed what influenced them, and then decided to call parts of it "morality." Thus making it no great mystery that morality influences people. The puddle was shaped to fit the hole, so it has no right to be surprised when it finds itself in a hole that fits it.

Comment author: peter_hurford 17 February 2013 08:34:45PM 0 points [-]

I have no clue if it's what projectivists get at, so you may want to elaborate :P

Projectivism is, I suppose, a part psychological and part meta-ethical theory that suggests people talk about their own desires about how the world should be as if they are objective, mind-independent moral truths. Hence "my morality" -> "morality".

I'm implying that people first noticed what influenced them, and then decided to call parts of it "morality." Thus making it no great mystery that morality influences people. The puddle was shaped to fit the hole, so it has no right to be surprised when it finds itself in a hole that fits it.

That makes sense. But that implies a desires-based theory of moral motivation, which isn't usually considered moral realism.

Comment author: Manfred 17 February 2013 09:36:24PM *  0 points [-]

which isn't usually considered moral realism.

Yeah, agreed - it's only moral realism in the sense that "I'm right, you're wrong" can be a true thing to say.

Comment author: peter_hurford 18 February 2013 02:17:29AM 0 points [-]

Yeah, agreed - it's only moral realism in the sense that "I'm right, you're wrong" can be a true thing to say.

I call that "success theory" and I agree with it.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit