I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that we are not free to stipulate definitions for the word-tools we use (when it comes to morality), because you have a conceptual intuition in favor of motivational internalism for the use of ‘ought’ terms?
Wikipedia defines motivational internalism as the belief that:
there is an internal, necessary connection between one’s conviction that X ought to be done and one’s motivation to do X.
I want to view this as a morally necessary connection. One should do what one ought to do, and this serves as the definition of “ought”.
You will note that I am using circular definitions. That is because I can’t define “should” except in terms of things that have a hidden “should” in there. But I am trying to access the part of you that understands what I am saying.
The useful analogue is this:
modus ponens: “If you know ‘A’, and you know ’If A, then B”, then you know B”
It’s a circular definition getting at something which you can’t put into words. I would be wrong to define “If-then” as something else, like maybe “If A, then B” means “75% of elephants with A written on them believe B” because it’s already defined.
Unfortunately, I still don’t follow you. Or at least, the only interpretations I’ve come up with look so obviously false that I resist attributing them to you. Maybe I can grok your disagreement from another angle. Let me try to pinpoint where we disagree. I hope you’ll have some time to approach mutual understanding on this issue. When Will Sawin disagrees with me, I pay attention.
Do you agree that there are many words X such that X is used by different humans to mean slightly different things?
Do you agree that there are many words X such that different humans have different intuitions about the exact extension of X, especially in bizarre sci-fi hypothetical scenarios?
Do you agree that many humans use imperative terms like ‘ought’ and ‘should’ to communicate particular meanings, with these meanings often being stipulated within the context of a certain community?
Thanks. I’m thinking of doing a post on the discussion section where I can explain where my intuitions come from in more detail.
For your questions:
Yes.
Yes.
I don’t really know what the third question means. It seems like the primary use of “ought” and “should” is as part of an attempt to convince people to do what you say they should do. I would say that is the meaning being communicated. There are various ways this could be within the context of a community. Are you saying that you’re only trying to convince members of that community?
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that we are not free to stipulate definitions for the word-tools we use (when it comes to morality), because you have a conceptual intuition in favor of motivational internalism for the use of ‘ought’ terms?
Wikipedia defines motivational internalism as the belief that:
I want to view this as a morally necessary connection. One should do what one ought to do, and this serves as the definition of “ought”.
You will note that I am using circular definitions. That is because I can’t define “should” except in terms of things that have a hidden “should” in there. But I am trying to access the part of you that understands what I am saying.
The useful analogue is this:
modus ponens: “If you know ‘A’, and you know ’If A, then B”, then you know B”
It’s a circular definition getting at something which you can’t put into words. I would be wrong to define “If-then” as something else, like maybe “If A, then B” means “75% of elephants with A written on them believe B” because it’s already defined.
Does that make any sense?
Unfortunately, I still don’t follow you. Or at least, the only interpretations I’ve come up with look so obviously false that I resist attributing them to you. Maybe I can grok your disagreement from another angle. Let me try to pinpoint where we disagree. I hope you’ll have some time to approach mutual understanding on this issue. When Will Sawin disagrees with me, I pay attention.
Do you agree that there are many words X such that X is used by different humans to mean slightly different things?
Do you agree that there are many words X such that different humans have different intuitions about the exact extension of X, especially in bizarre sci-fi hypothetical scenarios?
Do you agree that many humans use imperative terms like ‘ought’ and ‘should’ to communicate particular meanings, with these meanings often being stipulated within the context of a certain community?
I’ll stop there for now.
Thanks. I’m thinking of doing a post on the discussion section where I can explain where my intuitions come from in more detail.
For your questions:
Yes.
Yes.
I don’t really know what the third question means. It seems like the primary use of “ought” and “should” is as part of an attempt to convince people to do what you say they should do. I would say that is the meaning being communicated. There are various ways this could be within the context of a community. Are you saying that you’re only trying to convince members of that community?
Note: I’m planning to come back to this discussion in a few days. Recently my time has been swamped running SI’s summer minicamp.
I may also write something which expresses my ideas in a new, more concise and clear form.
I think that would be the most efficient thing to do. For now, I’ll wait on that.
If you haven’t noticed, I just made that post.
Any response to this?
Excellent. I’m busy the next few days, but I’ll respond when I can, on that thread.
I think you meant to leave out either the “except” or the “don’t”?
Correct.