Shalmanese comments on Rebasing Ethics - Less Wrong

-9 Post author: Shalmanese 15 December 2009 01:56PM

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

Comments (68)

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

Comment author: Shalmanese 15 December 2009 04:10:53PM *  1 point [-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs

"I do not lie, I do not cheat and believe it or not, all because that is what I CHOOSE. I know right from wrong. It is in the best interests of Humankind to 'get along'. If we all killed each other off then we wouldn't be able to carry on generation after generation. Killing each other and doing harm goes against all of Evolution!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx1yXvcT2kw

As an aside, it's much harder to find text references to this than video links.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 15 December 2009 06:12:14PM *  2 points [-]

The first item (Dawkins) is about causal explanation for why people are often nice, saying that religious upbringing has very little to do with the way people actually act, that the way people actually act got determined by evolution, and of course this common origin applies to atheists in the same way. See Human universal.

The item doesn't argue that you should be nice because of evolution; that is a cached pattern for religion that argues along the lines of you having to be nice because a certain book says so.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 December 2009 04:18:44PM 2 points [-]

Perhaps they said something else similar and you oversimplified their meaning?

Comment author: Shalmanese 15 December 2009 04:21:19PM 0 points [-]

Perhaps. Could you unsimplify it for me? I don't really see where they are being less than clear in their descriptions.

Comment author: wedrifid 15 December 2009 10:12:20PM 0 points [-]

The speaker personally chooses not to lie and cheat (or, one hopes, murder). He doesn't claim that humans don't have programming that encourages such behaviours at times, he claims that humans are programmed to have morality, which can involve suppressing other programming. We having names that we use to moralize and disapprove of lies, cheating and murder is somewhat of an indicator that humans do have impulses that push them in that direction.

Morals are also culturally dependent. In some cases it would be considered immoral not to commit what we would describe as 'murder'. The closest male relative of a victim is considered morally obligated to avenge him. Our culture (or perhaps 'cultures' given that my culture doesn't care about tips) calls this 'murder' and disapproves even though most people would have some degree of empathy for the motive. That is, *they expect the killer to be programmed to want to commit such a murder".

As for cheating and stealing: the speaker allegedly personally does neither. But does he lock his car or leave his keys in the ignition?