“As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of people have a morality that grounds out in social status.”
seems straightforwardly understandable, at least to me.
Are you confused by the meaning or implications?
By the way, I almost never write with a Straussian intention since only a tiny subset of LW readers are sufficiently savvy and motivated to dig through multiple layers of obfuscation.
Presumably Duncan is not entirely immune to status considerations, so it’s advantageous to beat around the bush a bit, but it doesn’t seem like his intention was to hide a deeper meaning within either.
The narrower claim of:
“As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of people have a morality that grounds out in social status.”
seems straightforwardly understandable, at least to me.
Are you confused by the meaning or implications?
By the way, I almost never write with a Straussian intention since only a tiny subset of LW readers are sufficiently savvy and motivated to dig through multiple layers of obfuscation.
Presumably Duncan is not entirely immune to status considerations, so it’s advantageous to beat around the bush a bit, but it doesn’t seem like his intention was to hide a deeper meaning within either.
i mean given the belief that social status is very relevant to a lot of people, what would you say differently if you were writing the post?