Peterdjones comments on A funny argument for traditional morality - Less Wrong

15 Post author: cousin_it 12 July 2011 09:25PM

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

Comments (70)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Peterdjones 13 July 2011 05:44:28PM *  2 points [-]

The world is full of people who may want to edit my values ever-so-slightly while I'm not looking, in order to further their own agenda. lso my values may drift, and most drift is harmful from the perspective of my current values. A good recipe for countering this insidious deterioration of values is to consciously pull them back toward their original source, as long as it's something unchanging, like a book.

The argument assumes change is necessarily for the worse. People can aquire new values whilst seeing them as an improvement. If it is possible to meta-evaluate values this way, then you should seek to improve your values any way you can. if it is not possible to meta-evaluate values, then you don't know that your existing values are optimal or any good at all. Keeping them out of sheer conservatism is not rational. Although one could make a half hearted wisdom-of-the-crowds argument.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 September 2011 11:55:18AM *  0 points [-]

If it is possible to meta-evaluate values this way, then you should seek to improve your values any way you can. if it is not possible to meta-evaluate values, then you don't know that your existing values are optimal or any good at all.

Can you expand by what you mean by meta-evaluate? I can understand analysing values by a framework that has nothing to do with my values. But why would I try to maximise some metric employed by this framework, so I'm confused as to why I don't end up just following my values.