= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nshepperd comments on Pluralistic Moral Reductionism - 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 (316)
Hmm. Sounds like it would be helpful to taboo "objective" and "subjective". Or perhaps this is my fault for not being entirely clear.
A standard can be put into the form of sentences in formal logic, such that any formal reasoner starting from the axioms of logic will agree about the "judgements" of the standard.
I should mention that this point that I use the word "morality" to indicate a particular standard - the morality-standard - that has the properties we normally associate with morality ("approving" of happiness, "disapproving" of murder, etc). This is the standard I would endorse (by, for example, acting to maximise "good" according to it) were I fully rational and reflectively consistent and non-akrasiac.
So the judgements of other standards are not moral judgements in the sense that they are not statements about the output of this standard. There would indeed be something inconsistent about asserting that other standards made statements about -- ie. had the same output as -- this standard.
Given that, and assuming your objections about "subjectivity" still exist, what do you mean by "subjective" such that the existence of other standards makes morality "subjective", and this a problem?
It already seems that you must be resigned to your arguments failing to work on some minds: there is no god that will strike you down if you write a paperclip-maximising AIXI, for example.
Yep. Subjective statements about X can be phrased in objectivese. But that doesn't make them objective statements about X.
By other standards do you mean other people's moral standards, or non-moral (eg aesthetic standards)?
Of course. But I think moral objectivism is better as an explanation, because it explains moral praise and blame as something other than a mistake; and I think moral objectivism is also better in practice because having some successful persuasion going on is better than having none.
I don't know what you mean, if anything, by "subjective" and "objective" here, and what they are for.
Okay... I think I'll have to be more concrete. I'm going to exploit VNM-utility here, to make the conversation simpler. A standard is a utility function. That is, generally, a function that takes as input the state of the universe and produces as output a number. The only "moral" standard is the morality-standard I described previously. The rest of them are just standards, with no special names right now.
A mind, for example an alien, may be constructed such that it always executes the action that maximises the utility of some other standard. This utility function may be taken to be the "values" of the alien.
Moral praise and blame is not a mistake; whether certain actions result in an increase or decrease in the value of the moral utility function is a analytic fact. It is further an analytic fact that praise and blame, correctly applied, increases the output of the moral utility function, and that if we failed to do that, we would therefore fail to do the most moral thing.
By "subjective" I meant that it is indexed to an individual, and properly so. If Mary thinks vanilla is nice, vanilla is nice-for-Mary, and there is no further fact that can undermine the truth of that -- whereas if Mary thinks the world is flat, there may be some sense in which it is flat-for-Mary, but that doens't count for anything, because the shape of the world is not something about which Mary has the last word.
And there is one such standard in the universe, not one per agent?
If Mary thinks the world is flat, she is asserting that a predicate holds of the earth. It turns out it doesn't, so she is wrong. In the case of thinking vanilla is nice, there is no sensible niceness predicate, so we assume she's using shorthand for nice_mary, which does exist, so she is correct. She might, however, get confused and think that nice_mary being true meant nice_x holds for all x, and use nice to mean that. If so, she would be wrong.
Okay then. An agent who thinks the morality-standard says something other than it does, is wrong, since statements about the judgements of the morality-standard are tautologically true.
There is precisely one morality-standard.
Each (VNM-rational or potentially VNM-rational) agent contains a pointer to a standard -- namely, the utility function the agent tries to maximise, or would try to maximise if they were rational. Most of these pointers within a light year of here will point to the morality-standard. A few of them will not. Outside of this volume there will be quite a lot of agents pointing to other standards.