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 04:07:12AM 1 point [-]

Well, the common name for this X is something being "moral" or "right" but it appears a lot of people in this thread like to use those words in non-standard ways.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 31 October 2013 01:37:11PM 0 points [-]

If you mean what I think you mean, then I agree... I'm disregarding the commonly-referenced "morality" or "rightness" of acts that somehow exists independent of the values that various value-having systems have.

If it turns out that such a thing is important, then I'm importantly mistaken.

Do you believe such a thing is important?
If so, why?

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 04 November 2013 08:22:55PM 1 point [-]

I assume you're trying to imply that there exists some X that bears the same kind of relationship to valuing that truth has to belief, and that I'm making an analogous error by ignoring X and just talking about value as if I ignored truth and just talked about belief.

I think that is a distinct possibility.

Do you believe such a thing is important?

What's more important? What would serve as a good excuse for doing immoral things, or not knowing right from wrong?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 05 November 2013 12:33:36AM 0 points [-]

What would serve as a good excuse for doing immoral things, or not knowing right from wrong?

The lack of anything depending on whether an act was immoral; the lack of any consequences to not knowing right from wrong.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 05 November 2013 09:42:01AM 1 point [-]

Firstly, you are assuming something that many would disagree with: that an act with no consequences can be immoral, rather than being automatically morally neutral.

Secondly: even if true, that is a special case.

The importance of morality flows from its obligatoriness.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 05 November 2013 02:26:40PM 0 points [-]

Sure. You asked a very open-ended question, I made some assumptions about what you meant. If you'd prefer to clarify your own meaning instead, I'd be delighted, but that doesn't appear to be your style.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 05 November 2013 03:05:48PM *  1 point [-]

The intended answer to "what is more important than morality", AKA "what is a good excuse for behaving immorally" was "nothing" (for all that you came up with ... nothing much). The question was intended to show that not only is morality important, it is ultimately so.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 05 November 2013 03:50:40PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for clarifying.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit