= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MattG comments on Beware the Nihilistic Failure Mode - 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 (24)
I find that the nihilism-relativism-universalism trichotomy, among other things, doesn't really divide things well.
I would describe most LessWrong users as universalists that are not absolutists. If what is moral is what you value, and there is a fact of the matter as to what you value, then there is an objective morality, even if it is contingent rather than ontologically fundamental.
To me it seems you're just playing with words here. "you can say it's an objective contigent morality", or you can just say it's a "subjective" morality. Either way, you're just playing with words, and not changing the underlying meaning.
The problems with subjective mortality are that it is too ready to vary, and too hard to achieve coordination. If Objective Contingent morality solves those problems, that would be a real and worthwhile difference,