Except that something is moral whether any being cares about morality or not, just like something is prime regardless of whether or not anyone cares about primality.
And what happens when you plug in MrMinds claim that there are multiple species specific moralities? Doesn’t that mean that every action is both moral and immoral from multiple perspective?
I think we’ve ceased to argue about anything but definitions.
Cut out “morality” and get:
Different species have different sets of values they respond to. Every action is valued according to some such sets fo values and not valued or negatively valued by other sets of values.
You can call any set of values “a” morality if you want, but I think that ceases to refer to what we’re talking about when we say something is moral whether anybody values it or not.
I’m not advocating the idea that morality is value, I am examining the implications of what other people have said.
You wrote an article purporting to explain the Yudkowskian theory of morality, and, indeed the one true theory of morality, since the two are the same.
Hypothetically, making a few comments about value, and nothing but value, doesn’t do what is advertised on the label. The reader would need to know how value relates back to morality.
And in fact you supplied the rather definitional sounding statement that Morality is Values.
If you base an argument on a definition ,don’t be surprised if people argue about it. The alternative, where someone can stipulate a definition, but no one can challenge it, is a game that will always be won by the first to move.
And what happens when you plug in MrMinds claim that there are multiple species specific moralities? Doesn’t that mean that every action is both moral and immoral from multiple perspective?
I think we’ve ceased to argue about anything but definitions.
Cut out “morality” and get:
Different species have different sets of values they respond to. Every action is valued according to some such sets fo values and not valued or negatively valued by other sets of values.
You can call any set of values “a” morality if you want, but I think that ceases to refer to what we’re talking about when we say something is moral whether anybody values it or not.
I’m not advocating the idea that morality is value, I am examining the implications of what other people have said.
You wrote an article purporting to explain the Yudkowskian theory of morality, and, indeed the one true theory of morality, since the two are the same.
Hypothetically, making a few comments about value, and nothing but value, doesn’t do what is advertised on the label. The reader would need to know how value relates back to morality.
And in fact you supplied the rather definitional sounding statement that Morality is Values.
If you base an argument on a definition ,don’t be surprised if people argue about it. The alternative, where someone can stipulate a definition, but no one can challenge it, is a game that will always be won by the first to move.