= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek 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)
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for clarifying.