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.

Eugine_Nier comments on Why didn't people (apparently?) understand the metaethics sequence? - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: ChrisHallquist 29 October 2013 11:04PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (229)

Comments (229)

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

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 31 October 2013 03:33:17AM 2 points [-]

1) claims that morality isn't arbitrary and we can make definitive statements about it

2) Also claims no universally compelling arguments.

Both these statements are also true about physics, yet nobody seems to be confused about it in that case.

Comment author: Ishaan 31 October 2013 03:59:53AM *  0 points [-]

What do you mean? Rational agents aught to converge upon what physics is.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 31 October 2013 04:11:05AM 1 point [-]

Rational agents aught to converge upon what physics is.

Only because that's considered part of the definition of "rational agent".

Comment author: Ishaan 31 October 2013 05:03:58AM *  0 points [-]

Yes? But the recipient of an "argument" is implicitly an agent who at least partially understands epistemology. There is not much point in talking about agents which aren't rational or at least partly-bounded-rational-ish. Completely insensible things are better modeled as objects, not agents, and you can't argue with an object.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit