Pigliucci's comment on Yudkowsky's and Dai's stance on morality and logic

mapnoterritory

So morality has a lot to do with logic — indeed I have argued that moral reasoning is a type of applied logical reasoning — but it is not logic “all the way down,” it is anchored by certain contingent facts about humanity, bonoboness and so forth.

But, despite Yudkowsky’s confident claim, morality isn’t a matter of logic “all the way down,” because it has to start with some axioms, some brute facts about the type of organisms that engage in moral reasoning to begin with. Those facts don’t come from physics (though, like everything else, they better be compatible with all the laws of physics), they come from biology. A reasonable theory of ethics, then, can emerge only from a combination of biology (by which I mean not just evolutionary biology, but also cultural evolution) and logic.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.de/2013/01/lesswrong-on-morality-and-logic.html

Pigliucci:

So morality has a lot to do with logic — indeed I have argued that moral reasoning is a type of applied logical reasoning — but it is not logic “all the way down,” it is anchored by certain contingent facts about humanity, bonoboness and so forth.

But, despite Yudkowsky’s confident claim, morality isn’t a matter of logic “all the way down,” because it has to start with some axioms, some brute facts about the type of organisms that engage in moral reasoning to begin with. Those facts don’t come from physics (though, like everything else, they better be compatible with all the laws of physics), they come from biology. A reasonable theory of ethics, then, can emerge only from a combination of biology (by which I mean not just evolutionary biology, but also cultural evolution) and logic.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.de/2013/01/lesswrong-on-morality-and-logic.html

So according to you morality is not only relative..it's subjective. Interesting But in this article I'm pretty sure he was addressing the commonly agreed upon 'most good for the most people' morality. I'd go so far as to say that, that is morality.

Your words have many connotations. 'Subjective' and 'relative' are often misunderstood at the best of times. If you could taboo these, we'd see where any real disagreement lay.

Also, I don't see any more disagreement here. 'Greatest good for the greatest number' is a calculation to be made. If that statement sums up all of ethics, then it is a logical fact, not a physical one. I can't shoot your fact to make it different. We can simply turn the criterion for 'good' into a computation, so that we input physical facts, and it comes out with advice on what to ... (read more)