Fairly good summary. I don’t mind the FAQ structure. The writing style is good, and the subject matter suggests obvious potential to contribute to the upcoming Wiki Felicifia in some way. Now as good as the essay is, I have some specific feedback:
In section 2.2, I wonder if you could at put your point more strongly...
you wrote: if morality is just some kind of metaphysical rule, the magic powers of the Heartstone should be sufficient to cancel that rule and make morality irrelevant. But the Heartstone, for all its legendary powers, is utterly worthless and in fact totally indistinguishable, by any possible or conceivable experiment, from a fake...
I would suggest: Metaphysical rules are like a kind of heartstone that one can wear when they make moral decisions. It is reputed to rule our moral considerations. But despite its reputation, the heartstone is utterly worthless and...”
If you’re going to use a metaphor, you might as well get full value from it!
2.61: I understand the point you’re making here. I couldn’t agree with it more. Still, if you’re trying to reduce the amount of words in the way between the reader and the later sections—as you should be—then this section is one you could consider abbreviating or removing. The whole phlogiston analogy is not obvious to a layperson.
Your line of thought seems to get somewhat deraied at 3.5. I don’t quite understand why ‘signalling’ fits in ‘assigning value to other people’.
4 is extremely good. The trolley discussions are reminiscent of Peter Unger’s Living High and Letting Die. It’s a shame it takes so long to get there.
Fairly good summary. I don’t mind the FAQ structure. The writing style is good, and the subject matter suggests obvious potential to contribute to the upcoming Wiki Felicifia in some way. Now as good as the essay is, I have some specific feedback:
In section 2.2, I wonder if you could at put your point more strongly...
you wrote: if morality is just some kind of metaphysical rule, the magic powers of the Heartstone should be sufficient to cancel that rule and make morality irrelevant. But the Heartstone, for all its legendary powers, is utterly worthless and in fact totally indistinguishable, by any possible or conceivable experiment, from a fake...
I would suggest: Metaphysical rules are like a kind of heartstone that one can wear when they make moral decisions. It is reputed to rule our moral considerations. But despite its reputation, the heartstone is utterly worthless and...”
If you’re going to use a metaphor, you might as well get full value from it!
2.61: I understand the point you’re making here. I couldn’t agree with it more. Still, if you’re trying to reduce the amount of words in the way between the reader and the later sections—as you should be—then this section is one you could consider abbreviating or removing. The whole phlogiston analogy is not obvious to a layperson.
Your line of thought seems to get somewhat deraied at 3.5. I don’t quite understand why ‘signalling’ fits in ‘assigning value to other people’.
4 is extremely good. The trolley discussions are reminiscent of Peter Unger’s Living High and Letting Die. It’s a shame it takes so long to get there.
Continued in this Felicifia post