Cyan comments on The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality and What To Do About It - Less Wrong

38 [deleted] 11 June 2009 12:31PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (113)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Cyan 11 June 2009 08:21:55PM 7 points [-]

Our moral intuition makes arguments of the form "behavior X usually leads to a bad outcome, therefore X is wrong".

I think the whole point is that our moral intuition doesn't make arguments -- we have them, and then we come up with rationalizations ex post facto.

So if the outcome is already specified, the intuition has nothing to say; nor would we expect it to...

But empirically, intuition really did prompt lots of people to classify the incest as a moral transgression.

Comment author: dclayh 11 June 2009 08:30:21PM 2 points [-]

Right, I phrased that very badly. What I was trying to say is that the moral intuition was trained (evolutionarily or whatever) to map from behaviors to right/wrongness based on the (weighted) set of possible outcomes. So when we're given a behavior, the intuition spits out a right/wrong decision based on what was likely to have happened, not considering what was stipulated in the problem to have actually happened.

Comment author: Cyan 11 June 2009 08:44:08PM *  0 points [-]

See, and I was going to write that your second paragraph was more insightful and didn't really follow from your first paragraph. I was going to say that it seemed like that was what moral intuition was actually calculating inaccessibly, so it is indeed interesting that (as far as Greene reports) nobody does come out with it as a rationalization. But then I held off, because I thought that I was just projecting my own thought process onto your words, and you might have meant something more in line with your first paragraph by them.