= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on Why didn't people (apparently?) understand the metaethics sequence? - 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 (229)
Here's an example of inconsistency in philosophical use. I keep saying that Eliezer equivocates about whether he is a realist, and that I think he's right to do so. Elsewhere in the comments on this post you say that moral subjectivism is not realism by definition. But it's not clear to me from the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on moral realism that this is so. The entry on anti-realism says that Sayre-McCord explicitly puts moral subjectivism in moral realism. Since he wrote the article on realism, that explains why it seems to accept that possibility, but this it certainly demonstrates that this uncertainty is more mainstream than you allow.
The problem with the standard jargon is that "realism" is used to label a metaphysical and an epistemological claim. I like to call the epistemological claim, that there is a single set of moral truths, moral objectivism, which clearly is the opposite of moral subjectivism.
Uncertainty, even disagreement, about how to classify views is fine. It's not the same as inconsistency. Sayre-McCord's position on subjectivism is non-standard and treated as such. But I can still figure out what he thinks just from a single paragraph summarizing his position. He takes the standard definitions as a starting point and then makes an argument for his structure of theories. This is the sort of thing I'm asking you to do if you aren't going to use the standard terminology.
You seem to be concerned with bashing philosophy instead of explaining your usage. I'm not the field's standard bearer. I just want to know what you mean by the words you're using! Stop equivocating about realism and just state the ways in which the position is realist and the ways in which it is anti-realist. Or how it is realist but you don't think realism should mean what people think it means.
I never used "realism," so there's no point in my defining it.
Look back at this thread!
My whole point was that Eliezer avoids the word. He thinks that cognitivism is a useful concept, so he uses it. Similarly, he avoids "moral subjectivism" and uses terms like "subjectively objective." He equivocates when asked for a label, endorsing both "realist" and "cognitivist anti-realist." But he does spell out the details, in tens of thousands of words across this sequence.
Yes, if people want to pin down Eliezer's views they should say what parts are realist and what parts are anti-realist. When I object to people calling him realist or anti-realist, I'm certainly agreeing with that!
After that comment about "bashing philosophy," I don't think there's any point in responding to your first paragraph.
I am one of a number of people who cannot detect a single coherent theory in his writings. A summary in the standard jargon would be helpful in persuading me that there is one.
...
These quotes did not exactly express to me that you don't know to what extent his views or realist or anti-realist. I'm sorry if I was targeting you instead of Eliezer... but you were agreeing with his confusing equivocation.
Ah yes, the old eschewing the well-recognized, well-explored terminology for an oxymoronic neologism. How could anyone get confused?
You sure you're not trying to force me to use jargon I don't like? I don't know what else to call responding to new jargon with sarcasm.
At the very least, you seem to be demanding that we confuse laymen so that philosophers can understand. I happen to believe that philosophers won't understand, either.
No, the right answer isn't to say "I don't know if he is a realist." Actually, I do think it would be better to reject the question of realism than to equivocate, but I suspect Eliezer has tried this and found that people don't accept it.
As far as I can tell, no one understands. But I don't see how my suggestion, which involves reading maybe 2 encyclopedia articles to pick up jargon, would confuse laymen especially.
Right, it's just you explicitly called him an anti-realist. And he apparently calls himself both? You can see how I could get confused.
Do people accept equivocation? I'd be fine with rejecting the question of realism so long as it was accompanied by an explanation of how it was a wrong question.
Just expressing my opinion re: design principles in the construction of jargon. I know I've been snippy with you, apologies, I haven't had enough sleep.