= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Yvain comments on Rebasing Ethics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (68)
I deliberately chose an innocuous example so as to not overly trip the discussion into the specifics of the example itself. I'm not going to talk about some of the more extreme examples of what this would imply until other people do.
You're correct in that modifying tipping behavior by itself would probably not be worth being a dick about in the same way that just switching to low fat milk is probably not worth absorbing all of our science of nutrition & dieting about. You have to be able to see the cumulative effects of a complete rebasing before you can judge it's ultimate utility.
As for whether it's worth it, I think you need to look at where a person wants to be vs where they actually are. Looking out in the world, I don't see a lot of rationalists of the type who inhabit this board who are rich, powerful, admired, have happy marriages or have fulfilled the potential they believe they have. I'm not promising that you'll have all of that if you just rebase your ethics but If you happy not to try just so you can keep your warm fuzzy moral feelings, that's, of course, your own choice.
That helps me understand where the evolution reference comes from and how the tip fits in, but I still don't understand where you get your preference.
Most people would like to be richer, more powerful, and more admired, and it may be that their morality is keeping them from that. But most people would probably also like to be more moral, more compassionate, and contribute more to society, and their desire for material success is keeping them from that. Moral choices are a trade-off between these two desires.
Like all trade-offs, which option to choose depends on the value of each good involved. In a choice between getting an extra dollar and saving a million lives, I'd choose the lives. In a choice between getting a million dollars and preventing one other person getting a dust-speck-in-the-eye, I'd take the million. The question isn't whether to take moral or material goods, it's at what rate to exchange them.
This post seems to be arguing that people consistently overvalue moral goods and undervalue material goods. But when psychologists actually study the issue, they find the opposite: that moral goods are much more effective at purchasing life satisfaction and personal happiness than material goods (This study is the first I found, and not necessarily the best, of a large number).
If increasing our consumption of material as opposed to moral goods isn't justified by evolutionary history and doesn't make us happier, what exactly is the advantage?
Huh? I read Shalmanese's post as arguing that some moral goods are "moral junk food" and impede your progress towards other, more "wholesome" moral goods - not necessarily material. This thesis strikes me as correct, but for some reason the commenters aren't addressing it directly.
I agree with your larger point, but I have a minor quibble. I don't think 'contribution to society' should be grouped with the second set of goals - generally it's much easier and more productive to contribute through money and power.
Not only that, but moral goods are also often the best way of gaining or maintaining status. As Shalma's video observes, this even applies to gorillas.