TheAncientGeek comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - Less Wrong

236 Post author: Yvain 30 May 2010 09:16PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (343)
Tags: willpower

Comments (343)

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

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 November 2013 10:15:51AM *  1 point [-]

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 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.

Comment author: Desrtopa 20 November 2013 04:46:58PM 0 points [-]

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?

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 November 2013 05:11:05PM -1 points [-]

Legal systems that were in place before any sort of Categorical Imperative formulation, and did not particularly change in response to it.

The planets managed to stay in their orbits before Newton, as well.

Do you think that the Categorical Imperative formulation has helped us, morally speaking, and if so how?

So far I have only been pointing out that the arguments against it barely scratch the surface.

Comment author: Desrtopa 20 November 2013 05:21:06PM 0 points [-]

So do you think that it either improves or accurately describes our morality, and if so, can you provide any argument for this?

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 November 2013 05:33:00PM 1 point [-]

I think it is a feasible approach which is part of a family of arguments which have never been properly considered on LW.

Comment author: Desrtopa 20 November 2013 05:38:12PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 November 2013 06:08:39PM *  0 points [-]

That doesn't answer my question.

I was deliberately not playing along with your framing that the CI is wrong by default unless elaborately defended.

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.

I see no evidence of that. If it had been considered at length: if it had been people would be able to understand it (you keep complaining that you do not), and they would be able to write relevant critiques that address what it is actually about.

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.

Again, I don't have to put forward a steelmanned version of a theory to demonstrate that it should not be lightly dismissed. That is a false dichotomy.

Comment author: Desrtopa 20 November 2013 06:22:27PM 0 points [-]

I'm not complaining that I don't understand it, I'm complaining that your explanations do not make sense to me. Your formulation seems to differ substantially from Kant's (for instance, the blanket impermissibility of stealing was a case he was sufficiently confident in to use as an example, whereas you do not seem attached to that principle.)

You haven't explained anything solid enough to make a substantial case that it should not be lightly dismissed; continuing to engage at all is more a bad habit of mine than a sign that you're presenting something of sufficient use to merit feedback. If you're not going to bother explaining anything with sufficient clarity to demonstrate both crucially that you have a genuinely coherent idea of what you yourself are talking about, and that it is something that we should take seriously, I am going to resolve not to engage any further as I should have done well before now.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 November 2013 06:26:55PM 1 point [-]

I'm not complaining that I don't understand it, I'm complaining that your explanations do not make sense to me.

If you understand, why do you need me to explain?

for instance, the blanket impermissibility of stealing was a case he was sufficiently confident in to use as an example, whereas you do not seem attached to that principle

I have no idea what you are referring to.

You haven't explained anything solid enough to make a substantial case that it should not be lightly dismissed;

Again: that is not the default.

Comment author: Desrtopa 20 November 2013 06:34:19PM 2 points [-]

If you understand, why do you need me to explain?

Because I think you don't have a coherent idea of what you're talking about, and if you tried to formulate it rigorously you'd either have to develop one, or realize that you don't know how to express what you're proposing as a workable system. Explaining things to others is how we solidify or confirm our own understanding, and if you resist taking that step, you should not be assured of your own understanding.

Now you know why I was bothering to participate in the first place, and it is time, unless you're prepared to actually take that step, for me to stop.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit