3 ms·

I'll give you props for the clever answer that circumvents the question. ;)

by SlyShy 17y ago

xenophanes 17y ago
It's a good answer, not just clever. The issue he's addressing, clarified, is, "What if we had a source of infallible (moral) knowledge?" Then, "ask that source, not me, you, or any other fallible human" is not just clever but correct. However, infallible sources of knowledge badly violate everything we know about epistemology. So don't expect to actually find one. What interests me more is this issue: If I had a magnet that made people act a certain way, and I thought that certain way was moral/good, then should I use it on people? The answer then is no, in the event that I disagree with someone about what's good, I shouldn't force them with magnets; it could be me who is mistaken not them. I should instead persuade them to use the magnet voluntarily. What's good about a discussion with attempted persuasion is it could go either way. I could end up persuaded, or him. This is different than using the magnet which can't go either way, so if it's a mistake there's no possibility of it being corrected.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  The issue he's addressing, clarified, is, "What if we had a source of infallible (moral) knowledge?" Er, that's not a clarification of "The situation I envision is a machine that can be programmed to produce some set of "morality" as it were." It's a completely different thing.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    > What if there were a machine to make everyone moral? is the issue addressed by jjs
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      But since SlyShy started the thread, and jjs replied to him, I think I'll go with SlyShy's expansion of what he meant. Feel free to choose for yourself what SlyShy was talking about, but let's not confuse things by bringing jjs into it, hm? ;) Edit: aaaand I missed that the poster you were replying to was also SlyShy, changing the point of your comment. Nevermind me. Let's move along. Nothing to see.

I'll give you props for the clever answer that circumvents the question. ;)

by SlyShy 17y ago

I'll give you props for the clever answer that circumvents the question. ;)

It's a good answer, not just clever. The issue he's addressing, clarified, is, "What if we had a source of infallible (moral) knowledge?" Then, "ask that source, not me, you, or any other fallible human" is not just clever but correct. However, infallible sources of knowledge badly violate everything we know about epistemology. So don't expect to actually find one. What interests me more is this issue: If I had a magnet that made people act a certain way, and I thought that certain way was moral/good, then should I use it on people? The answer then is no, in the event that I disagree with someone about what's good, I shouldn't force them with magnets; it could be me who is mistaken not them. I should instead persuade them to use the magnet voluntarily. What's good about a discussion with attempted persuasion is it could go either way. I could end up persuaded, or him. This is different than using the magnet which can't go either way, so if it's a mistake there's no possibility of it being corrected.

randallsquared 17y ago
The issue he's addressing, clarified, is, "What if we had a source of infallible (moral) knowledge?" Er, that's not a clarification of "The situation I envision is a machine that can be programmed to produce some set of "morality" as it were." It's a completely different thing.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  > What if there were a machine to make everyone moral? is the issue addressed by jjs
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    But since SlyShy started the thread, and jjs replied to him, I think I'll go with SlyShy's expansion of what he meant. Feel free to choose for yourself what SlyShy was talking about, but let's not confuse things by bringing jjs into it, hm? ;) Edit: aaaand I missed that the poster you were replying to was also SlyShy, changing the point of your comment. Nevermind me. Let's move along. Nothing to see.