TsviBT comments on By Which It May Be Judged - Less Wrong

35 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 December 2012 04:26AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (934)
Tags: seq_epistemology metaethics fairness

Comments (934)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: TsviBT 10 December 2012 07:37:46AM 36 points [-]

Is this a fair summary?

The answer to the clever meta-moral question, “But why should we care about morality?” is just “Because when we say morality, we refer to that-which-we-care-about - and, not to belabor the point, but we care about what we care about. Whatever you think you care about, which isn’t morality, I’m calling that morality also. Precisely which things are moral and which are not is a difficult question - but there is no non-trivial meta-question.”

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 16 December 2012 01:13:04AM 17 points [-]

There is a non-trivial point in this summary, which is the meaning of "we." I could imagine a possible world in which the moral intuitions of humans diverge widely enough that there isn't anything that could reasonably be called a coherent extrapolated volition of humanity (and I worry that I already live there).

Comment author: Dues 12 November 2015 04:13:37AM 0 points [-]

Humans value some things more than others. Survival is the bedrock human value (yourself, your family, your children, your species). Followed by things like pleasure and the lives of others and the lives of animals. Every human weighs the things a little differently, and we're all bad at the math. But on average most humans weigh the important things about the same. There is a reason Elizer is able to keep going back to the example of saving a child.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit