wedrifid comments on The Preference Utilitarian’s Time Inconsistency Problem - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Wei_Dai 15 January 2010 12:26AM

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

Comments (104)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 16 January 2010 12:52:34AM 5 points [-]

Since you found our agreement unexpected

Let's say I agree with the specific statements, which would be unexpected by the context if I were a utilitarian. I wouldn't dream of accusing you of being a utilitarian given how much of an insult that would be given my position.

I'd also be quite interested in exploring other potentially viable approaches to moral philosophy. Given that you consider utilitarianism to be naive and verging on silly, what approaches do you find promising?

"The universe should be made to maximise my utility (best satisfy my preferences over possible states of the universe) " is my moral philosophy. From that foundation altruism and cooperation considerations come into play. Except that some people define that as not a moral philosophy.

Comment author: timtyler 03 June 2010 11:36:22PM *  5 points [-]

That seems to be this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism - which I would classify as some kind of moral philosophy.

It seems to be much more biologically realistic than utilitariaism. Utilitarianism appears to be an ethical system based on clearly signalling how unselfish and nice you are. The signal seems somewhat tarnished by being pretty unbelievable, though. Do these people really avoid nepotism and favouring themselves? Or are they kidding themselves about their motives in the hope of deceiving others?

Comment author: amcknight 19 November 2011 01:41:16AM 0 points [-]

It sounds silly and arbitrary when you discharge the references:

"The universe should be made to maximise widrifid's utility (best satisfy widrifid's preferences over possible states of the universe)"

Why not replace "widfirid" with "amcknight"? The fact that you happen to be yourself doesn't sound like a good enough reason.

Comment author: pedanterrific 19 November 2011 01:55:15AM 5 points [-]

Is there some reason why moral philosophy can't be arbitrary?

Comment author: amcknight 21 November 2011 08:34:40PM 0 points [-]

Yes. If you want your beliefs to pay rent, then you need to choose between features of reality rather than simply choose arbitrarily. Is there anything else that you believe arbitrarily? Why make an exception for moral philosophy? Reminds me of Status Quo Bias or keeping faith even after learning about other religions. Can you name a relevant difference?

Comment author: wedrifid 19 November 2011 03:18:08AM 3 points [-]

It sounds silly and arbitrary when you discharge the references:

That sounds like a good description of moralizing to me!