DanielLC comments on Morality is not about willpower - Less Wrong

9 Post author: PhilGoetz 08 October 2011 01:33AM

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

Comments (144)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: DanielLC 06 October 2011 06:25:08PM 1 point [-]

Behaving according to the utility function of the part of your psyche that deals with willpower requires willpower.

Also, saying that ethics doesn't require willpower isn't the same as saying it's not a choice. I act moral based on my utility function, which is part of who I am. When I make an act based on what kind of a person I am, I make a choice. That's the compatibilist definition of choice. Ergo, acting moral is a choice.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 07 October 2011 03:52:57AM *  1 point [-]

When I make an act based on what kind of a person I am, I make a choice. That's the compatibilist definition of choice.

I agree; but compatibilism is at odds with how people commonly use language. David DeAngelo says "Attraction isn't a choice", and by saying that he communicates the valuable lesson that you can't make a woman be attracted to you by convincing her to choose to be attracted to you. And yet, attraction is a choice, by the compatibilist definition. The compatibilist definition of "choice" ruins the word's usefulness, as it then fails to make any distinction... everything we do is a "choice" to the compatibilist, even breathing.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 08 October 2011 05:13:06AM 2 points [-]

David DeAngelo says "Attraction isn't a choice", and by saying that he communicates the valuable lesson that you can't make a woman be attracted to you by convincing her to choose to be attracted to you.

On the other hand it is possible to change someone's ethics, e.g., change their religion, make them vegetarian, by convincing them to change their religion, become a vegetarian, etc.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 08 October 2011 03:12:42PM 1 point [-]

That's a good point.

Comment author: asr 07 October 2011 04:47:09AM 2 points [-]

And yet, attraction is a choice, by the compatibilist definition.

This isn't true. You can be a compabilist without believing that all mental states are the result of choices. Breathing, for instance, is neurally involuntary. Your breath reflexes will ultimately override a decision to not breathe.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 07 October 2011 02:08:43PM 0 points [-]

The compatibilist definition of choice says that "choice" is the deterministic working-out of "who you are". You could, in principle, work out some sort of division of your actions into categories that have causes within the parts of your brain that you are most fond of, and those that have causes primarily with other parts, like the brainstem. Why would you want to do that?