Randolf comments on The curse of identity - Less Wrong

121 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 17 November 2011 07:28PM

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

Comments (296)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Fleisch 17 November 2011 10:41:00PM 1 point [-]

This is either a very obvious rationalization, or you don't understand Kaj Sotalas point, or both.

The problem Kaj Sotala described is that people have lots of goals, and important ones too, simply as a strategic feature, and they are not deeply motivated to do something about them. This means that most of us who came together here because we think the world could really be better will with all likelihood not achieve much because we're not deeply motivated to do something about the big problems. Do you really think there's no problem at hand? Then that would mean you don't really care about the big problems.

Comment author: quen_tin 18 November 2011 02:45:14PM -2 points [-]

Let me rephrase.

The assumption that there would exist pure gratitude-free goals is a myth: pursuing such goals would be absurd. (people who seem do perform gratitude-free actions are often religious people: they actually believe in divine gratitude).

Therefore social gratitude is an essential component of any goal and thus it is not correlated with lack of sincere motivation, nor does it "downgrade" the goal to something less important. It's just part of it.

Comment author: Randolf 21 November 2011 05:18:38PM *  1 point [-]

I'm afraid you are making a very strong statement with hardly any evidence to support it. You merely claim that people who pursue gratitude-free goals are often religious people (source?) and that such goals are a myth and absurd. (Why?) I for one, don't understand why such a goal would be necessarily absurd..

Also, I can imagine that even if I was the only person in the world, I would still pursue some goals.

Comment author: quen_tin 21 November 2011 05:40:04PM -2 points [-]

It's absurd from an ethical point of view, as a finality. I was implicitely talking in the context of pursuing "important goals", that is, valued on an ethical basis. Abnegation at some level is an important part of most religious doctrines.

Comment author: lessdazed 21 November 2011 05:50:26PM 1 point [-]

What prediction about the world can you make from these beliefs? What would be less - or more - surprising to you than to those with typical beliefs here?

Comment author: quen_tin 22 November 2011 04:19:14PM 1 point [-]

Ethic is not about predicting perceptions but conducting actions.

Comment author: quen_tin 22 November 2011 05:07:04PM 0 points [-]

Let me justify my position.

Gratitude-free actions are absurd from an ethical point of view, because we do not have access to any transcendant and absolute notion of "good". Consequently, we have no way to tell if an action is good if noone is grateful for it.

If you perform a gratitude-free action, either it's only good for you: then you're selfish, and that's far from the universal aim of ethics. Either you you believe in a transcendant notion of "good", together with a divine gratitude, which is a religious position.

Comment author: TimS 21 November 2011 06:24:59PM 0 points [-]

Is the following a reasonable paraphrase of your position:

If game theoretic considerations do not justify behaving in a way labelled "altruistic," then there is no reason to behave in "altruistic" ways.

Comment author: quen_tin 22 November 2011 04:45:39PM 0 points [-]

My view is very altruistic on the contrary : seeking gratitude is seeking to perform actions that benefits others or the whole society. Game theoretic considerations would justify being selfish, which does not deserve gratitude at all.