From: Phil Goetz (philgoetz@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Jan 30 2005 - 23:39:34 MST
--- Patrick Crenshaw <patrick.crenshaw@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Did I understand your words correctly?
> >
> > - Jef
> >
> >
>
> Almost. What I meant was that what people consider
> right or wrong can
> be given by a value function. People think that
> something is the best
> thing to do when it maximizes their pet value
> function. For a given
> moral system that is consistent, I can give you a
> value function.
>
> Then I started blathering on about the properties
> that a physically
> realizable value function would have. What I was
> trying to say was
> that there is a class of value functions that are
> objective, and that
> the "correct" morality would use a value function in
> this class.
Um. What Jef said.
Aren't you conflating moral value with numeric value?
You think there is a class of objective moral value
functions? Can you give an example?
- Phil
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT