@Eliezer: “what one ought to do” vs. “what one p-ought to do”
Suppose that the pebblesorter civilization and the human civilization meet, and (fairly predictably) engage in a violent and bitter war for control of the galaxy. Why can you not resolve this war by bringing the pebblesorters and the humans to a negotiating table and telling them “humans do what they ought to do and Pebblesorters do what they p-ought to do”?
You cannot play this trick because p-ought is grounded in what the pebblesorters actually do, which is in turn grounded in the state of the universe they aim for, which is the same universe that we live in. The humans and the pebblesorters seem to be disagreeing about something as they fight each other: the usual way that people would put this disagreement into words is by saying “they are disagreeing about what is right”.
However, you are using the word “right” in a nonstandard way. You have changed the meaning of the entire ethical vocabulary in this same way, to represent a specific constant answer rather than a variable, so it becomes very hard to say what the humans and pebblesorters are disagreeing about. It seems a little odd to say that these hated enemies are in complete agreement, and it is certainly not the standard way that people use the ethical vocabulary. Perhaps it is a better way: I’m just taking some time getting used to it.
In fact in your new use of the English language, you probably are not a relativist, for the way you are using the ethical vocabulary it is in fact impossible to be a relativist: all ethical theories T describe some objective predicate, T-right, and any act is either T-right or it isn’t. In your new language, it isn’t possible to talk of “rightness” detached from any particular predicate.
But I think that in your new use of language, you will need a word for the idea of a justification for an ethical theory, for example Kant’s arguments “from first principles” in favor of the categorical imperative. Perhaps you could call ethical theories with this property “first-principles justified theories”? You may argue that no such theory exists, but a lot of philosophers would disagree, so you should have a word for it. And your ethical theory doesn’t even try for this property, it is unashamedly unjustified.
Eliezer said: “Furthermore, I believe that human beings are better than Pebblesorters.
In your new use of the ethical vocabulary, this is a vacuous applause light. Of course the humans are better than the pebblesorters: you defined “good” as “the predicate that describes the particular set of things that humans do”.
@Eliezer: “what one ought to do” vs. “what one p-ought to do”
Suppose that the pebblesorter civilization and the human civilization meet, and (fairly predictably) engage in a violent and bitter war for control of the galaxy. Why can you not resolve this war by bringing the pebblesorters and the humans to a negotiating table and telling them “humans do what they ought to do and Pebblesorters do what they p-ought to do”?
You cannot play this trick because p-ought is grounded in what the pebblesorters actually do, which is in turn grounded in the state of the universe they aim for, which is the same universe that we live in. The humans and the pebblesorters seem to be disagreeing about something as they fight each other: the usual way that people would put this disagreement into words is by saying “they are disagreeing about what is right”.
However, you are using the word “right” in a nonstandard way. You have changed the meaning of the entire ethical vocabulary in this same way, to represent a specific constant answer rather than a variable, so it becomes very hard to say what the humans and pebblesorters are disagreeing about. It seems a little odd to say that these hated enemies are in complete agreement, and it is certainly not the standard way that people use the ethical vocabulary. Perhaps it is a better way: I’m just taking some time getting used to it.
In fact in your new use of the English language, you probably are not a relativist, for the way you are using the ethical vocabulary it is in fact impossible to be a relativist: all ethical theories T describe some objective predicate, T-right, and any act is either T-right or it isn’t. In your new language, it isn’t possible to talk of “rightness” detached from any particular predicate.
But I think that in your new use of language, you will need a word for the idea of a justification for an ethical theory, for example Kant’s arguments “from first principles” in favor of the categorical imperative. Perhaps you could call ethical theories with this property “first-principles justified theories”? You may argue that no such theory exists, but a lot of philosophers would disagree, so you should have a word for it. And your ethical theory doesn’t even try for this property, it is unashamedly unjustified.
Eliezer said: “Furthermore, I believe that human beings are better than Pebblesorters.
In your new use of the ethical vocabulary, this is a vacuous applause light. Of course the humans are better than the pebblesorters: you defined “good” as “the predicate that describes the particular set of things that humans do”.