objectively possible to determine what these [values] are
I agree that it is possible to figure out an agent’s terminal values by observing their behavior and such, but I don’t understand what work the word “objectively” is doing in that sentence.
Basically it means that even though moralities may be subjective I think statements like “that’s wrong” or “that’s the right thing to do” are useful, even if at base meaningless.
I agree that it is possible to figure out an agent’s terminal values by observing their behavior and such, but I don’t understand what work the word “objectively” is doing in that sentence.
Most people, as this thread has exhibited, don’t understand what the word means or at least not what it means in phases like “objective moral facts”.
Given the amount of discussion of applied-morality concepts like Friendliness and CEV, I had higher expectations.
Basically it means that even though moralities may be subjective I think statements like “that’s wrong” or “that’s the right thing to do” are useful, even if at base meaningless.
The idea that a meaningless statement can be useful represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word “meaningless” means.
If a statement is useful, it must have meaning, or else there would be nothing there to use.
I think he means “don’t refer to anything” rather than “meaningless”.