blacktrance comments on Be comfortable with hypocrisy - Less Wrong

32 Post author: The_Duck 08 April 2014 10:03AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (78)

CC Licenced

Comments (78)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: blacktrance 08 April 2014 08:41:18PM -1 points [-]

"Selfish hedonism" is also an ethical system, though not a very popular one. You could say that meat gives you pleasure and that ethically justifies eating it, even though it causes some suffering.

it is entirely possible to be unethical - the sky will not fall, the oceans will not boil, you will not be sent to hell

I agree that it's possible to be unethical, but I don't believe that it's possible to believe that you're doing something unethical while you're doing it, not if you believe that you actually believe that you shouldn't do it. (On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to think "This is what society in general or a particular ethical system labels as unethical, but I don't agree with it.")

If you believe utilitarianism to be correct but don't always act as a utilitarian would, what do you mean when you say that you believe that utilitarianism is correct? One possibility is that you forget that utilitarianism is correct every time you have the opportunity to buy or eat meat, but this seems unlikely. Another possibility is that you forget that meat-eating is bad from a utilitarian perspective when you have an opportunity to eat meat, but this is also unlikely. So what do you mean by "utilitarianism is... correct"?

Comment author: Lumifer 08 April 2014 08:50:52PM 6 points [-]

I don't believe that it's possible to believe that you're doing something unethical while you're doing it

<boggle> Really?

Comment author: blacktrance comment score below threshold [+] (8 children)

Comment author: gjm 09 April 2014 07:10:33PM 3 points [-]

Here are a few related but different questions.

"What do I feel most inclined to do right now?"
"What do I, on reflection, think it would be best to do right now?"
"What do I, on reflection, think it would be best to do right now *if I tried to suppress my natural tendencies to be more concerned for myself than others, more concerned for those close to me than those further away, etc.?"

If you define "X thinks s/he should do Y" in terms of X's answer to question 1 (or some slight variant worded to ensure that it always matches what X is actually doing) then, indeed, no one ever does anything they think they "shouldn't". But I see no reason at all to think that this sense of "should" has anything much to do with what's usually called ethics, or indeed with anything else of much interest to anyone other than maybe X's psychiatrist. Our actions are driven not only by our stable long-term values but also by any number of temporary whims, some of them frankly crazy.

If you define "X thinks s/he should do Y" in terms of X's answer to question 2 or 3, then you can make a case that "should" is now something to do with ethics (especially for question 3, but maybe also for question 2) -- but now it's not at all true that a person's actions always match what they "think they should do". I frequently do things that, on the whole, I think I shouldn't do. Often while actually thinking, in so many words, "I really shouldn't be doing this."

And all this is true whether X is thinking about what-it-would-be-best-to-do explicitly in terms of "best in such-and-such a system of values", or taking "best" as having an "absolute" meaning somehow.

Comment author: blacktrance 09 April 2014 09:23:10PM 0 points [-]

I am not defining "X thinks they should do Y" in terms of 1, but in terms of 2. People can certainly feel inclined to do things they shouldn't do. But if you force them into a reflective mode and they still act as they did before, it tells you about what they really believe. If it's a failure of self-control due to habits/forgetfulness, that I can understand. But in the case of reluctant meat-eaters, it seems to be something more than that - they claim to not want to eat meat, but if you don't want to eat meat, it's easy not to - just don't buy it and then you won't have any meat to eat. Sometimes people buy things they wouldn't reflectively want, but that's when they're buying something they'd view as harmful to the self (or just suboptimal), and not in the general category of "evil". No one can simultaneously reflectively think "I shouldn't do this (because it's evil)" and "I should do this (evil) thing". The only possibility is that for reluctant meat-eaters, meat is an impulse buy, but that seems unlikely.

I frequently do things that, on the whole, I think I shouldn't do. Often while actually thinking, in so many words, "I really shouldn't be doing this."

I suspect you're using two different meanings of "should" here.

Comment author: gjm 10 April 2014 07:39:07PM 1 point [-]

But if you force them into a reflective mode [...]

OK, so either now you're making a weaker claim than the one you started out with ("I don't believe that it's possible to believe that you're doing something unethical while you're doing it") or I misunderstood what you meant before. Because people frequently aren't in "a reflective mode". (And I don't think believing something's unethical requires being in a reflective mode.)

But you still haven't moved far enough for me to agree (not that there's any particular reason you should care about that). I think I have frequently had the experience of reflecting that I really don't want to be doing X, while doing X. It's not that I'm not in reflective mode, it's that the bit of me that's in reflective mode doesn't have overall control.

This is all a separate matter, by the way, from the question of how to use terms like "should", "ethical", etc., in the face of the fact that we (almost) all care much more about ourselves than about distant others, and that many of us hold that in some sense we shouldn't. I appreciate that you wish to use those terms to refer to a person's "overall" values as (maybe inexactly) shown by their actions, rather than to their theoretical beliefs about what morally perfect agents would do. I'm not sure I agree, but that isn't what I'm disagreeing with here.

I suspect you're using two different meanings of "should" here.

What meanings, and where do you think I'm using each?

Comment author: blacktrance 10 April 2014 08:45:49PM * 0 points [-]

I suspect our inferential distance may be too high for agreement at this time. But, to clarify on one point

What meanings, and where do you think I'm using each?

You said "I frequently do things that, on the whole, I think I shouldn't do. Often while actually thinking, in so many words, 'I really shouldn't be doing this.'". This is a plausible rephrasing of "I frequently do things that I generally disapprove of and perhaps would prefer if people in general wouldn't do them, also I may sometimes feel guilty about doing things I disapprove of, especially if they're generally socially disapproved of in my culture, subculture, or social group. When I do these things, I think the words 'I shouldn't do this', by which I don't literally mean that I shouldn't do this, but that doing this is 'boo!'/'ugh'/low-status/seems to conflict with things I approve of/would not happen in a world I'd prefer to live in."

Comment author: gjm 10 April 2014 09:57:21PM 2 points [-]

I suspect our inferential distance may be too high for agreement at this time.

Oh. Would you care to say more?

(meanings of "should")

So, your proposed expansion of my second "should": (1) on what grounds do you think it likely that I mean that, and (2) is it actually different from your proposed expansion of the first? ("Seems to conflict with things I approve of" and "would not happen in a world I'd prefer to live in" are not far from "things that I generally disapprove of" and "perhaps would prefer if people in general wouldn't do them", respectively.)

It seems a little curious to me that your proposed expansion of my second "should" offers, in fact, not one possible meaning but five (though I'm not sure there's a very clear distinction between "boo!" and "ugh" here). It seems to me that this weakens your point -- as if you're sure I must mean something other than what I say, but you have no real idea what.

In fact, despite your dismissive references to social status in what you say, I can't help suspecting that you're trying to pull a sort of status move here: when blacktrance says "should" s/he really means "should", but when gjm says "should" he means "hooray!" or "high-status" or something -- anything! -- with a little touch of intellectual dishonesty about it.

Well, you might be right. But let's see some evidence, if so.

Comment author: blacktrance 10 April 2014 11:12:13PM * 0 points [-]

Oh. Would you care to say more?

This wouldn't be the first time I've run into inferential distances when discussing ethics on LW, and I suspect it to be the case here, perhaps in part due to differences in terminology, in part due to unstated background assumptions.

on what grounds do you think it likely that I mean that

I don't know if you in particular mean that, but it's a common usage I've noticed among people who do things that they say they shouldn't do.

I think I rambled a little too much in my expansion, so to compress it into something more compact: "I occasionally do things I and/or people whose opinions I care about label as 'morally bad', and when I do these things, I think the words 'I shouldn't do this'. In part I've internalized that doing this thing is 'bad', but I don't actually think it's bad, and I still choose to do it." To further clarify, when people say "I shouldn't do X", they mean that it feels like an external imposition for them, and if they could do what they wanted, they'd cast it aside and do X, and only the desire to be moral (perhaps motivated by guilt, shame, or adherence to social norms) is keeping them from doing it. There is another sense of "I shouldn't do X", as in "I shouldn't put my hand on a hot stove" - there's no external imposition there, motivation is entirely internal. Both meanings of "should" are common, and perhaps I am wrong to say that only the second, internal meaning of "should" is valid.

If one thinks that one externally-shouldn't eat meat, they may still eat meat because they don't think they internally-shouldn't eat meat. I forgot (due to inferential differences) that belief that morality is external is common (a belief I do not share), and in that case it's certainly possible to believe you're acting unethically and still consistently want to eat meat.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 April 2014 09:08:44PM 1 point [-]

Really. To unpack that statement, "unethical" = "what one shouldn't do". If you're choosing to do something, you think you should do it, so you obviously can't be thinking that you shouldn't do it.

Yes, we seem to be having terminology problems.

For the record, let me briefly define the words I'm using.

Morality (=morals) is a system of values along with the importance (=weight) that people attach to them. In most real-life situations any course of action will conflict with some values so decision-making is an exercise in balancing values and deciding on acceptable trade-offs.

Ethics is a collection of action guidelines driven by the morals. Because most decisions are trade-offs, it's common for actions to match some ethical guidelines and not match other ones.

Generally speaking, our conscious mind does the balancing act and comes up with a "what should I do" decision, but the unconscious mind does its own calculation and may come with a another decision. If the decisions are different you have the usual problems under the umbrella of hypocrisy, guilty conscience, etc.

People usually speak of morals and ethics meaning the calculations done by the conscious mind. So it's perfectly possible for one to think "I should not eat that pint of ice cream" while gobbling it up. The mind is not a single agent.

Comment author: blacktrance 08 April 2014 09:37:17PM -1 points [-]

I usually use the terms "morality" and "ethics" interchangeably, and in the sense in which "X is moral" and "one should do X" are synonymous.

The extent to which you attribute differences in beliefs and behavior seems unrealistic.. Certainly, people sometimes fall into habits, aren't mindful, forget what they're doing, etc, but it seems implausible that it would lead to such wide disparities between what your conscious mind thinks you should do and what you actually do. It would mean that if I were to remind someone who professes that eating meat is wrong of their belief while they're reaching for a piece of steak at the store, they'd consider what they're doing and choose to not buy the steak. While this may be the case some of the time, it would have to happen much more often than it actually does.

Comment author: Punoxysm 08 April 2014 08:57:42PM 1 point [-]

What really goes on, I think for most people and certainly myself, is compartmentalization. I understand certain things to be ethical and others to be unethical, and when it comes time to make a decision (eating meat, for instance) that question is entirely neglected, or skimmed over.

Now, clearly animal suffering is something I don't really care about. But that doesn't mean I have any argument or foundation for believing that it is legitimately unimportant. I think this is much truer for an issue I care more about (but not enough to act fully ethically), poverty and altruism. I know that people across the world are impovershed and could benefit from my altruism more than I will benefit from something frivolous and overpriced I might buy instead. But I may still buy the frivolous thing at times.

And all but the most committed people will behave this way most of the time; they will not even earnestly try to behave ethically, but instead behave conveniently.

One possibility is that you forget that utilitarianism is correct every time you have the opportunity to buy or eat meat, but this seems unlikely. Another possibility is that you forget that meat-eating is bad from a utilitarian perspective when you have an opportunity to eat meat, but this is also unlikely.

Yes, these are both unlikely, but replace "forget" with "habitually conspire with myself to forget/ignore/brush off".

Think of it this way: Whether someone sticks to a diet (for heatlh, let's say, and not vegetarianism) or not is partly a matter of belief in the importance of the diet, but it is also partly a matter of habit, convenience, impulse and opportunity. The same is true for when we follow our ethical beliefs.

Comment author: blacktrance 08 April 2014 09:04:38PM * 0 points [-]

Compartmentalization does make it sound that you forget that eating meat is unethical when it's decision time.

Now, clearly animal suffering is something I don't really care about. But that doesn't mean I have any argument or foundation for believing that it is legitimately unimportant.

Do you need an argument for believing it's legitimately unimportant? Why not just say that it's an arbitrary taste? The same goes for altruism - other people may benefit more from your money than you do, but, you don't care nearly as much about them as you care about yourself. Utilitarianism says that's wrong, but why should you think that utilitarianism is correct?

As for diets, when someone develops habits that maintain a diet, it's because they believe that diet to be correct.

Comment author: Punoxysm 08 April 2014 09:15:22PM 0 points [-]

You are right that tastes are a deciding factor, but you're taking it too far. According to you it impossible to act unethically, and/or your personal ethics must be consistently determined by your actions. I can essentially behave entirely arbitrarily and to you I will be obeying my own true code of ethics.

A big part of what this site addresses is how humans are inconsistent, irrational, and self-deceiving and short-termist. Can we at least agree that there are moments when people take actions that are more inconsistent, irrational and self-deceiving and moments when their actions are better-harmonized with their stated/aspirational goals and beliefs?

And can we agree that if I believe, as most reasonable people to, that irrational anger is bad, yet I flip someone off in a bout of road rage, it's possible I'm failing to live up to a consistent set of beliefs which I legitimately care about, rather than my stated beliefs being a veneer over my true, sometimes-road-raging beliefs?

And if you've ever been on a diet or known people on a diet, you know that circumstance and external factors (say, trainer or family support, distance to the nearest grocery store vs. nearest fast food place) make a huge difference on adherence, even when there's no clear tie between those things and how correct the person believes the diet to be?

Comment author: blacktrance 08 April 2014 09:49:17PM 0 points [-]

According to you it impossible to act unethically, and/or your personal ethics must be consistently determined by your actions. I can essentially behave entirely arbitrarily and to you I will be obeying my own true code of ethics.

Not at all. It's certainly possible to act unethically, such as if you're inconsistent, or if you have mistaken beliefs about what's ethical. What you can't do is intentionally do something while consciously thinking that it's unethical. For example, you can't think "I'll torture these children, even though torturing children is wrong" - not if you believe that torturing children is wrong.

It is true that people are sometimes inconsistent because sometimes they act according to their habits instead of deliberately, or because strong emotions overwhelm them and they forget to do what they believe to be correct. But if that were the main explanation for why people don't always do what they believe to be right, I would expect people to have the feeling of "Oops, I forgot! and messed up" more often than they seem to. Instead, something like "It's wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway" seems to be more common, which implies that they don't really think it's wrong.

blacktrance comments on Be comfortable with hypocrisy - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (78)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (78)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login