= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on A funny argument for traditional morality - 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 (70)
I think you are right to call attention to the issue of drift.
Drift is bad in a simple value - at least in agents that consider temporal consistency to be a component of rationality. But drift can be acceptable in those 'values' which are valued precisely because they are conventions.
It is not necessarily bad for a teen-age subculture if their aesthetic values (on makeup, piercing, and hair) drift. As long as they don't drift too fast so that nobody knows what to aim for.
Those are instrumental values. Nobody cares very much if those change, because they were just a means to an end in the first place.
My position here is roughly that all 'moral' values are instrumental in this sense. They are ways of coordinating so that people don't step on each other's toes.
Not sure I completely believe that, but it is the theory I am trying on at the moment. :)
Right - but there are surely also ultimate values.
Those are the ones that are expected to be resistant to change.
It can't be instrumental values all the way down.
Correct. My current claim is that almost all of our moral values are instrumental, and thus subject to change as society evolves. And I find the source of our moral values in an egoism which is made more effective by reciprocity and social convention.
I think these guys have a point. So, from my perspective, Egoism is badly named.