= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on Moral Anti-Epistemology - 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 (36)
I wasnt objecting to utilitarianism.
Belief isnt the important criterion. The important criterion is whether person B can argue for or against what person A takes as automatic. How do you show objectively that claim can't be argued for, and has to be assumed.
Values are complex. Whether moral values are complex is another story.
That doesn't seem to be an intrinsic problem. You can make a set of rules as precise as you like. It also not clear that the well known alternatives fare better. Utilitarianism, in particular, works only in fairly constrained domains, where you're not comparing apples and oranges.
Arguably, that's a feature, not a bug. If people realised how insubstantial ethics is, they would have trouble sticking to it.
I know, my point referred to people using "ethics is from humans for humans" in a way that would also rule out transhumanism.
The burden of proof is elsewhere, how do you overcome the is-ought distinction when you try to justify/argue for a claim? Edit: To repraphse this (don't know how this could get me downvotes, but I'm trying to make this more clear), if the arguments for the is-ought distinction, which seem totally sound, are correct, it is unclear how you could argue for person A's moral assumptions being incorrect, at least in cases where these assumptions are non-contradicting and not based on confused metaphysics.