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.

Jack 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.

Comments (229)

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

Comment author: Jack 05 November 2013 03:31:27AM 0 points [-]

If morality varies with individuals, as required by subjectivism, it is not at all universal, so the two are not orthogonal.

Subjectivism does not require that morality varies with individuals.

Morality is objective when the truth values of moral statements don't vary with individuals or groups

No, see the link above.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 05 November 2013 09:08:07AM 0 points [-]

The link supports what I said. Subjectivism requires that moral claims have truth values which , in principle, dpened on the individual making them. It doesn't mean that any two people will necessarily have a different morality, but why would I assert that?

Comment author: Jack 05 November 2013 10:22:54AM 0 points [-]

Subjectivism requires that moral claims have truth values which , in principle, dpened on the individual making them

This is not true of all subjectivisms, as the link makes totally clear. Subjective simply means that something is mind-dependent; it need not be the mind of the person making the claim-- or not only the mind of the person making the claim. For instance, the facts that determine whether or not a moral claim is true could consist in just the moral opinions and attitudes where all humans overlap.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 05 November 2013 10:38:23AM 0 points [-]

There are people who use "subjective" to mean "mental", but they sholudn't.