Daniel_Burfoot comments on Two questions about CEV that worry me - Less Wrong

29 Post author: cousin_it 23 December 2010 03:58PM

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

Comments (137)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 23 December 2010 07:14:02PM 0 points [-]

This seems to assume that change in human values over time is mostly "progress" rather than drift.

I do not accept the proposition that modern values are superior to ancient values. We're doing better in some regards than the ancients; worse in other regards. To the extent that we've made any progress at all, it's only because the societies that adopted truly terrible moral principles (e.g. communism) failed.

Comment author: DanArmak 23 December 2010 07:24:36PM 9 points [-]

Please clarify: do you think there's some objective external standard or goal, according to which we've been progressing in some areas and regressing in others?

If you're aware of what that goal is, why haven't you adopted it as your personal morals, achieving 100% progression?

If you're not aware of what it is, why do you think it exists and what do you know about it?

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 24 December 2010 01:32:34AM 2 points [-]

To me the word "morality" means the philosophy underlying the social contract. The goal is human well-being. When I say we've regressed in some areas, I mean that we've modified the social contract in ways that are harmful to human well-being.

To make the terms concrete, consider the case of communism. Clearly this was a drastic revision of the social contract with disastrous consequences for human well-being. The revision was justified by a certain set of moral values that turned out to be far inferior to the more traditional ones.

Comment author: DanArmak 24 December 2010 10:53:00AM 4 points [-]

The goal is human well-being. When I say we've regressed in some areas, I mean that we've modified the social contract in ways that are harmful to human well-being.

What is an objective measure of human well-being? Whatever the answer, it will contradict some people's morals; so you're condemning these morals as wrong. To me that seems to be favoring your own morals.

Don't get me wrong - our moral are probably quite compatible. It's just that I think "I prefer my own morals" is both simpler and more honest than "I prefer an objective measure, which just happens to agree with my morals, and which many other people don't accept".

Comment author: wedrifid 24 December 2010 02:55:53AM 8 points [-]

To the extent that we've made any progress at all, it's only because the societies that adopted truly terrible moral principles (e.g. communism) failed.

Communism isn't a truly terrible moral principle. It's just a moral principle that is naive and impractical as a political and economic solution given humanity as it is. A couple of elements that we would disparage as communist may actually be necessary in a post-human FAI enhanced universe in order to prevent a Hansonian hell.