Even without reading it you understand the point of metaethics more than hbotz has to the point that I thought you did
He asked you how to rank it. Not how you would rank it. He's asking for the process you'd use to rank it and why you would use that process, i.e. what ethical stance are you taking
He got there in such a non rigorous way though that shows he was just getting somewhere he already was
why do you think your answers would be so different? do you think you are more right than they?
yes. u need to compensate for the fact that ur on a boat and its much easier for chaos to happen.
but i never purported to know the details. it was just a guess. you asked after all.
i am more interested in the truth than i am in being right
also, contrary to popular opinion, i'm pretty savvy.
For the record, this was not posted as a “ok go and do this” post
This was me respondign with a way to show how better goods and worse evils might exist
Yes, and your reasoning was "lawlesness at sea made 'women and children first' a thing." That's a faulty premise to a faulty conclusion. It is a hard problem. You realize now why I say you can't just keep making claims without justifying them? Because when you start to examine why you're making the claim you're making, you run into issues that are hard to resolve.
Well yeah I know all of that
no i dont think i am more right than they are. i dont expect everyone to try to make the rules come out consistent, although a lot of them might. but i try to make the rules come out consistent or else i dont think it makes sense. plenty of people do things that dont make sense, though.
But even him going and doing it led to the same thing, just through a two step example: he ranked it and then you posed the question of why he ranked it the way he did, which gets back to the original point.
well i wasnt sure in the first place. all that happened is that i got corrected. it is no loss to me.
so do you believe the basis for morality is "makign sense"?
It does matter because this narrative that I posted a normative problem for hbotz to fill out when I was talking about fucking metaethics is wrong
Now evaluate some of the other claims you make. Like "the only things that matter are those that are physically based and empirically testable." Do you see why this specific analysis matters and has no material basis and no method of empirical testing?
Yeah, I'm saying that him filling it out didn't actually matter for you posing an example: you made his response the example for the question about meta-ethics
no. the requirement for my own stated morality, one that i would be willing i tell people, is at least making sense, but i dont have any system on hand that makes sense besides utilitarianism, which i am unwilling to try to implement.
the basis of morality in general and the subtler effects i am not aware of that affect what i do are biological and social factors. the social factors may be very interesting.
Anyways deciding to live within a relativist framework without ever actually thinking about why you ended up in that framework or trying to understand the universalist framework to see if maybe that is attractive to you is shit and to top it off it’s bad science to disregard potential objections to your argument by ignoring them rather than confronting them head on and disproving them
also my obsession with making sense, as it were, is also due to biological and social factors in the end. of course. for example, i would expect higher incidence of utilitarianism-like moralities among nonreligious americans. maybe.
Yeah but I didn’t even want to give an example I was bullied into it