= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on [SEQ RERUN] No License To Be Human - 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 (13)
Now all you need is a system that you believe cannot prove anything which is false. It isn't permitted to be that way by definition, and it needs to be able to prove a significant number of things.
The first step to finding that system is being able to tell if many moral statements are false, without referencing our morality. Unless we create a morality oracle, I don't see a way to do that.
Start by considering the class of statements "In situation S, it is immoral to take an action in set A" and their complementary sets "In situation S, it is immoral to refrain from all actions in set A". If immorality is always avoidable, then one of those two statements is false, and any system which can prove both of them is therefore excluded.
What are the odds that what is 'right-right' will be a system compatible with a system which developed with competing pressures, and has as a major characteristic that 'people who have this system successfully convince other people to adopt it'?
Well, this is the case for mathematics and science.
How? Can mathematics or science know if two moralities are compatible with each other?
What I meant was that what is true is indeed "a system compatible with a system which developed with competing pressures, and has as a major characteristic that 'people who have this system successfully convince other people to adopt it'". Sorry if that was unclear.
On what basis do you make that assertion?
Also, I don't think that 'true' is a correct descriptor for the One Correct Morality. 'Right' is the best word I think we have for what it is.
Me:
Decius:
The two examples of such systems of what is true that I mentioned in the great-gradparent: mathematics and science.
Neither of those are systems of morality.
I never said they were. My point was that the statement you were implying to be extremely unlikely, is in fact valid for non-moral truths.
That's because we have a physical truth oracle that we can do two use to test the validity of physical truths. If we could objectively observe the morality of an action, then we could have a system of morality as accurate to the perfect one as our system of science is accurate.
Right now I would figure that our system of morality (being roughly as developed as Aristotle's) bears as much relation to the proposed right system as Aristotle's science bears to the actual laws of physics. For the same reasons.
Further, I don't think that according to my current morality, I should switch my beliefs to what is right, even if I could figure out what that is. I'd have to know how to test acts for morality first, but if that test goes against my current judgement I am likely to judge the test flawed, in the same way that I would call a calculator wrong if it consistently told me that 2+2=5