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.

tog comments on Discussion of Slate Star Codex: "Extremism in Thought Experiments is No Vice" - Less Wrong Discussion

15 Post author: Artaxerxes 28 March 2015 09:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (110)

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

Comment author: samath 29 March 2015 04:02:55AM 8 points [-]

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?

Comment author: tog 29 March 2015 06:50:31AM *  1 point [-]

How about moral realist consequentialism? Or a moral realist deontology with defeasible rules like a prohibition on murdering? These can certainly be coherent. I'm not sure what you require them to be non-arbitrary, but one case for consequentialism's being non-arbitrary would be that it is based on a direct acquaintance with or perception of the badness of pain and goodness of happiness. (I find this case plausible.) For a paper on this, see http://philpapers.org/archive/SINTEA-3.pdf

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 29 March 2015 10:20:39AM 2 points [-]

Or rule consequentialism, or constructivism, or contractarianism....