Yvain, good anecdote about Darrow. I hate spinach too.
Say half the population takes a pill that makes them really, truly believe that murder is right. The way I understand Eliezer’s assertion that his morals aren’t relative, he’d say ‘no, murder is still wrong’, and would probably assert the same even if 100% of the population took the pills. The pill-takers would assert, and absolutely believe, that they were right. Not p-right, but right. I’d love to hear proof that the pill-takers are wrong, and that everyone else is right. Not p-right, but right.
Murder is always wrong to the extent that those abstract complex calculations will still come out the same. Is that the extent of the argument? If so, what does it even mean to say ‘even if everyone believes murder is right, it’s still wrong’? Where does that data exist? Smacks of dualism to me.
Yvain, good anecdote about Darrow. I hate spinach too.
Say half the population takes a pill that makes them really, truly believe that murder is right. The way I understand Eliezer’s assertion that his morals aren’t relative, he’d say ‘no, murder is still wrong’, and would probably assert the same even if 100% of the population took the pills. The pill-takers would assert, and absolutely believe, that they were right. Not p-right, but right. I’d love to hear proof that the pill-takers are wrong, and that everyone else is right. Not p-right, but right.
Murder is always wrong to the extent that those abstract complex calculations will still come out the same. Is that the extent of the argument? If so, what does it even mean to say ‘even if everyone believes murder is right, it’s still wrong’? Where does that data exist? Smacks of dualism to me.