DefectiveAlgorithm comments on Superintelligence 24: Morality models and "do what I mean" - Less Wrong

7 Post author: KatjaGrace 24 February 2015 02:00AM

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

Comments (47)

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

Comment author: DefectiveAlgorithm 24 February 2015 05:11:31PM *  3 points [-]

Ok, I understand it in that context, as there are actual consequences. Of course, this also makes the answer trivial: Of course it's relevant, it gives you advantages you wouldn't otherwise have. Though even in the sense you've described, I'm not sure whether the word 'morality' really seems applicable. If torturing people let us levitate, would we call that 'objective morality'?

EDIT: To be clear, my intent isn't to nitpick. I'm simply saying that patterns of behavior being encoded, detected and rewarded by the laws of physics doesn't obviously seem to equate those patterns with 'morality' in any sense of the word that I'm familiar with.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 February 2015 05:16:17PM 0 points [-]

If torturing people let us levitate, would we call that 'objective morality'?

Sure, see e.g. good Christians burning witches.

Comment author: DefectiveAlgorithm 24 February 2015 05:19:37PM 0 points [-]

Hm. I'll acknowledge that's consistent (though I maintain that calling that 'morality' is fairly arbitrary), but I have to question whether that's a charitable interpretation of what modern believers in objective morality actually believe.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 February 2015 06:20:56PM 1 point [-]

If you actually believe that burning a witch has some chance of saving her soul from eternal burning in hell (or even only provide a sufficient incentive for others to not agree to pacts with Satan and so surrender their soul to eternal punishment), wouldn't you be morally obligated to do it?

Comment author: DefectiveAlgorithm 24 February 2015 08:54:34PM *  0 points [-]

I mean the sufficiency of the definition given. Consider a universe which absolutely, positively, was not created by any sort of 'god', the laws of physics of which happen to be wired such that torturing people lets you levitate, regardless of whether the practitioner believes he has any sort of moral justification for the act. This universe's physics are wired this way not because of some designer deity's idea of morality, but simply by chance. I do not believe that most believers in objective morality would consider torturing people to be objectively good in this universe.