Emile comments on Complexity based moral values. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (100)
Well, one has to be ultra careful to keep number of contrary ideas very low within a post, one has to already have a giant body of posts aligning with the opinions (and it is boring to just generate texts that are in agreement). I may post on this exact topic with the wording more refined. edit: Also you may have way more skill at converting people to contrary ideas than I do. I lose patience.
Anyway, an idea for you: there is a huge range of behaviours that we human may deem moral enough. Within this huge range, there could well be something that is conceptually simple. It is necessary that the morality values are easily calculated by humans, as the humans do not like to live in constant anticipation of unpredictable intervention. Especially when the intervention may be based on other people's volitions. There can well be a simple (but not too simple) agreeable morality system.
edit: also, look at law making. All successful legal systems are based on few principles, on which the constitution is based, on which the law is based. The law needs to be predictable by the citizens. Easily and quickly, knee jerk reflex level predictable.
You may also be lacking in the skill of telling when your contrary ideas are actually wrong. I don't doubt are certainly correct ideas that go against what many LessWrongers think, but there are many more wrong ideas that do. It may be that Wei Dai brings the first kind, and you bring the second kind. Or it may be that Wei Dai is just a better writer than you. I'd say it's a mix of both.
The disagreement is mostly in the areas where LW does speculate massively.