= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - 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 (343)
Why is it failed? A counterexample was put forward that isn't a universal law. That doesn't prove the .CI to be wrong. So what does?
We already adjust rules by reference classes, since we have different rules for minors and the insane. Maybe we just need rules that are apt to the reference class and impartial within it.
If we have different rules for minors and the insane, why can't we have different rules for Jiro? "Jiro" is certainly as good a reference class as "minors".
Remember the "apt". You would need to explain why you need those particular rules.
Explain to who? And do I just have to explain it, or do they have to agree?
In rationality land, one rational agent is as good as another
When you raise it to high enough levels of abstraction that the Categorical Imperative stops giving worse advice than other models behind a veil of ignorance, it effectively stops giving advice at all due to being too abstract to apply to any particular situation with human intelligence.
You can fragment the Categorical Imperative into vast numbers of different reference classes, but when you do it enough to make it ideally favorable from behind a veil of ignorance, you've essentially defeated any purpose of treating actions as if they were generalizable to universal law.
I'd lovely know the meta model you are using to judge between models.
Universal isn't really universal, since you can't prove mathematial theorem to stones.
Fairness within a reference class counts.
I think I've already made that implicit in my earlier comments; I'm judging based on the ability of a society run on such a model to appeal to people from behind a veil of ignorance
I think that is a false dichotomy. One rule for everybody may well fail: Everybody has their own rule may well fai. However, there is till the tertium datur of N>1 rules for M>1 people. Which is kind of how legal systems work in the real world.
Legal systems that were in place before any sort of Categorical Imperative formulation, and did not particularly change in response to it.
I think our own legal systems could be substantially improved upon, but that's a discussion of its own. Do you think that the Categorical Imperative formulation has helped us, morally speaking, and if so how?
The planets managed to stay in their orbits before Newton, as well.
So far I have only been pointing out that the arguments against it barely scratch the surface.
So do you think that it either improves or accurately describes our morality, and if so, can you provide any argument for this?
I think it is a feasible approach which is part of a family of arguments which have never been properly considered on LW.
That doesn't answer my question.
I would suggest that the Categorical Imperative has been considered at some length by many, if not all members of Less Wrong, but doesn't have much currency because in general nobody here is particularly impressed with it. That is, they don't think that it either improves upon or accurately describes our native morality.
If you think that people on Less Wrong ought to take it seriously, demonstrating that it does one of those would be the way to go.