Why would you care if you hadn’t? (I wasn’t trying to put forward a robust defense of moral realism, I was trying to find out what the comment was about)
Label the rule producing the order A < B < C as “moral.”
As a way of explaining “The Meaning of Right” that is pretty unhelpful. EY says the true morality is a blob of computation that doens’t vary between persons. But it is capable of varying from other blobs of computation. So is calling that particular computation Moral the recognition of a pre-existing fact about it, or the stipulation of a meaning for the word “morality”?
Likewise—is the label a recognition (not abitrary) , or a stipulation that is arbitrary at the point that it is made.
Can you do more than just label? Is there a way of finding the one true order?
How would you know if you had?
Why would you care if you hadn’t? (I wasn’t trying to put forward a robust defense of moral realism, I was trying to find out what the comment was about)
As a way of explaining “The Meaning of Right” that is pretty unhelpful. EY says the true morality is a blob of computation that doens’t vary between persons. But it is capable of varying from other blobs of computation. So is calling that particular computation Moral the recognition of a pre-existing fact about it, or the stipulation of a meaning for the word “morality”?
Likewise—is the label a recognition (not abitrary) , or a stipulation that is arbitrary at the point that it is made.