= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NMJablonski comments on What is Metaethics? - 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 (550)
It only isn't the answer if you have a problem with that particular person being murdered, or perhaps an objection to killing as a principle. I also would object to wanton, chaotic, and criminal killings, but that is because I have a complex network of preferences that inform that objection, not because murder has some intrinsic property of absolute "wrongness".
It is all preferences, and to think otherwise is the most frequent and absurd delusion still prevalent in rationalist communities. Even when a moralistic rationalist admits that moral truths and absolutes do not exist, they continue operating as if they do. They will say:
"Well, there may not be absolute morality, but we can still tell which actions are best for (survival of human race / equality among humans / etc)."
The survival of the human race is a preference! One which not all possible agents share, as we are all keenly aware of in our discussions of the threat posed by superintelligent AI's that don't share our values. There is no obligation for any mind to adopt any values. You can complain about that reality. You can insist that your preferences are the one, true, good and noble preferences, but no rational agent is obligated, in any empirical sense, to agree with you.
If people have some of the preferences they have because they should have them, the issue of ethics has simply been pushed back a stage. You cannot knock down the whole concept of ethics just by objecting to one simplistic idea, eg. "intrinsic wrongness". Particularly when more complex ideas have been spelt out..
The most frequent and absurd delusion in rationalist circles is that you can arrive at simple solutions to complicated problems by throwing a little science at them.
Rational agents are obliged to believe what can be demonstrated through reasons. Rationality is a norm. Morality is a norm too, if it is anything. You assume tactily that no reasoned demonstration of ethics can be made, but that is just an assumption. You have not done anything like enough to oblige a reasonable person to believe in the elimination of morality.
Well, when you have something substantive and meaningful to point to let me know. I suggest tabooing words like "ethics", "morality", "should", etc. If you can give me a clear reductionist description of what you're talking about in metaethics without using those words, I'd love to hear it.
There is no reason I should avoid the words "ethics", "morality", etc, in a discussion of ethics, morality, etc. It is in fact, an unreasonable request on your part.
I am also unpersuaded that I need to be a "reductionist" on the topic. The material on reductionism on this site seems to me a charter for coming up with pseudo-solutions that just sweep the problems under the rug.
My substantive point remains that you have not made a case for eliminating ethics in favour of preferences.
I'd like to hear more on this charter for pseudo-solutions. What's wrong with the mainstream LW picture? By private message or in this thread (if it's not too tangential) or in a new discussion thread.
Your substantive point is nonsensical. My physical, real world understanding of intelligent agents includes preferences. It does not include anything presently labeled "morality" and I have no idea what I would apply that label to.
I don't think you have anything concrete down there that you're talking about (I'd be excited to be wrong about this). So you can do your little philosophers dance in a world of poorly anchored words but I'm not going to take you seriously until you start talking about reality.
If you can't figure out what to apply "morality" to, that is your problem. Most people do not share it.
Alright.
I'm going to give this one last shot. Can you explain, succinctly, what you're talking about when you say "morality"?
concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
What is it about conduct that makes it right and good as opposed to wrong and evil?
What is it that determines these attributes, if not human preference?
Could you explain this further?