= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
seer comments on Discussion of Slate Star Codex: "Extremism in Thought Experiments is No Vice" - 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 (110)
As someone who has spent a lot of time with religious conservatives, I've heard the sort of argument given by Robertson many times before. And they use it as an actual argument used against nihilism, which they tend to think follows directly from atheism. So Scott is completely right to address it as such.
I think Robertson conflates the two because he (and others like him) can't really imagine a coherent non-arbitrary atheist moral realist theory. Can anyone here give a good example of one that couldn't include what the murderer he depicts seems to believe?
Well the fact that it appears to be impossible to get two LessWrongers to agree on whether a given moral theory is coherent and non-arbitrary is not encouraging in that regard.
Because lesswrongians have philosophical superpowers, so if they can't do it, noone can?
But lesswrongian are rather lacking philosophical ordinarypowers, from where I'm standing.
<nitpick>As written, this implies that every LWer holds a different moral theory, which seems obviously false. A better phrasing might be, "There does not appear to be a majority position on morality on LW."</nitpick>
Also, talking about only LWers seems a bit narrow. I would have gone for "moral philosophers in general", actually.