= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JamesAndrix comments on Open Thread: April 2010, Part 2 - 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 (194)
Around here, we seem to have a tacit theory of ethics. If you make a statement consistent with it, you will not be questioned.
The theory is that though we tend to think that we're selfless beings, we're actually not, and the sole reason we act selfless at all is to make other people think we really are selfless, and the reason we think we're selfless is because thinking we're selfless makes it easier to convince others that we're selfless.
The thing is, I haven't seen much justification of this theory. I might have seen some here, some there, but I don't recall any one big attempt at justifying this theory once and for all. Where is that justification?
I don't think that's the tacit theory of ethics around here.
Genes may be selfish, but primates survived better who had other related primates looking out for them, or who showed that they were caring. It could well be that some simple mutations led to primates that showed they were caring because they actually were caring. (Edit: It seems to me that this must be the case for at least part of our value system. )
This is relevant:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/uu/why_does_power_corrupt/
but the benefits to the genes can just as easily come from more subtle situational differences, and assistance by related others, rather than a major status change and change in attitudes.