= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave 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)
You certainly don't have to buy it, that's true.
But when you ask a question and someone provides an answer you don't like, showing why that answer is wrong can sometimes be more effective than simply asserting that you don't buy it.
The problem is a kind of quodlibet. Any inadequate theory can be made to work if one is allowed to dismiss whatever the theory can't explain.
Sure, I agree.
And any theory can be made to fail if I am allowed to demand that it explain things that don't actually exist.
So it seems to matter whether the thing I'm dismissing exists or not.
Regardless, all of this is a tangent from my point.
You asked "Why does it appear to make sense to wonder if we are valuing the right things?" as a rhetorical question, as a way of arguing that it appears to make sense because it does make sense, because the question of whether our values are right is non-empty. My point is that this is not actually why it appears to make sense; it would appear to make sense even if the question of whether our values are right were empty.
That is not proof that the question is empty, of course. All it demonstrates is that one of your arguments in defense of its non-emptiness is flawed.
You will probably do better to accept that and marshall your remaining argument-soldiers to a victorious campaign on other fronts.
Non-emptiness is no more flawed than emptiness. The Open Question remains open.
This is a nonsequitor. My claim was about a specific argument.