It’s been a while since I read (part of) the metaethics sequence. With that said:
I have a pretty strong aversion to the word “right” used in discourse. The word is used to mean a few different things, and people often fail to define their use of it sufficiently for me to understand what they’re talking about. I don’t remember being able to tell whether Eliezer was attempting to make a genuine argument for moral-realism; when he introduced the seemingly sensical term h-right (recognizing that things humans often feel are “right” are simply terminal values humans/that subset of humans) and then seemed to declare h-right->right, I stopped reading shortly thereafter (as I was either totally failing to parse or he was making no sense.)
It’s been a while since I read (part of) the metaethics sequence. With that said:
I have a pretty strong aversion to the word “right” used in discourse. The word is used to mean a few different things, and people often fail to define their use of it sufficiently for me to understand what they’re talking about. I don’t remember being able to tell whether Eliezer was attempting to make a genuine argument for moral-realism; when he introduced the seemingly sensical term h-right (recognizing that things humans often feel are “right” are simply terminal values humans/that subset of humans) and then seemed to declare h-right->right, I stopped reading shortly thereafter (as I was either totally failing to parse or he was making no sense.)