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.

TheAncientGeek 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.

Comments (110)

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

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 26 November 2013 09:25:20AM *  0 points [-]
  1. Realism does not equate to empiricism

  2. It also doesn't equate to non-empiricism. Eg "Fish do not feel pain, so angling is not cruel">

3.If you are like a clippy-- an entity that only uses rationality to fulfil arbitrary aims -- you won't be convinced/.Guess what? That has no impact on realism whatsoever. A compelling argument is an argument capable of compelling an agent capable of understanding it, and with a commitment to rationality as an end.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 26 November 2013 08:37:24PM 1 point [-]

Are your aims arbitrary? If not, why are Clippy's aims arbitrary, and your's not arbitrary?

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 27 November 2013 02:11:32PM -1 points [-]
Comment author: buybuydandavis 27 November 2013 08:11:16PM 0 points [-]

That doesn't answer my question.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 27 November 2013 08:25:29PM *  -1 points [-]

You asked two questions. My reply was meant to indicate that arbitrariness depends on coherence and extrapolation (revision, reflection), both of which Clippy has rather less of whichthan I do.