Tsujigiri comments on Disguised Queries - Less Wrong

57 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 09 February 2008 12:05AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (104)

Comments (104)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: TheOtherDave 17 December 2011 03:26:18PM 1 point [-]

So, let's look at a specific instance, just to be clear on what we're saying.

Suppose I believe that it's bad for people to suffer, and it's good for people to live fulfilled and happy lives.

I would say that's a moral belief, in that it's a belief about what's good and what's bad. Would you agree?

Suppose further that, when I look into how I arrived at that belief, I conclude that I derived it from the fact that I enjoy living a fulfilled and happy life, and that I anti-enjoy suffering, and that my experiences with other people have led me to believe that they are similar to me in that respect.

Would you say that my belief that it's bad for people to suffer is arbitrarily invented and built on blind faith?

And if so: what follows from that, to your way of thinking?

Comment author: Tsujigiri comment score below threshold [+] (7 children)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 17 December 2011 03:57:12PM 1 point [-]

A few things:

Can you clarify what rationalization you think I'm using, exactly? For that matter, can you clarify what exactly I'm doing that you label "justifying" my beliefs? It seems to me all I've done so far is describe what my beliefs are, and speculate on how they got that way. Neither of which, it seems to me, require any sort of faith (including but not limited to blind faith, whatever that is).
Leaving that aside, and accepting for the sake of discussion that "using a rationalization to justify how I believe the world should be" is a legitimate description of what I'm doing... is there something else you think I ought to be doing instead? Why?
I agree with you that family and cultural influence have a lot to do with moral beliefs (including mine).

Comment author: Tsujigiri 17 December 2011 04:55:17PM -2 points [-]

Can you clarify what rationalization you think I'm using, exactly? For that matter, can you clarify what exactly I'm doing that you label "justifying" my beliefs?

You said "Suppose I believe that it's bad for people to suffer". I'd say that's a moral belief. The rational justification you provided for that belief was that "I derived it from the fact that I enjoy living a fulfilled and happy life, and that I anti-enjoy suffering, and that my experiences with other people have led me to believe that they are similar to me in that respect".

is there something else you think I ought to be doing instead?

Not really. The main point I'm making is that there is no way to determine whether any moral is valid.

One could argue that morality distorts one's view of the universe and that doing away with it gives you a clearer idea of how the universe actually is because you're no longer constantly considering how it should be.

For example, you might think that your computer should work the way you want and expect, so when it crashes you might angrily consider yourself the victim of a diabolical computer and throw it out of your window. The moral belief has distorted the situation.

Without that moral belief, one would simply accept the computer's unwanted and unexpected behavior and calmly consider possible actions to get the behavior one wants. There is no sense of being cheated by a cruel universe.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 17 December 2011 05:20:32PM 2 points [-]

OK, thanks for clarifying.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that "it's bad for people to suffer" is a moral belief, but I disagree that "I derived it from..." is any sort of justification for a moral belief, including a rational one. It's simply a speculation about how I came to hold that belief.

I agree that there's no way to determine whether a moral belief is "valid" in the sense that I think you're using that word.

I agree that it's possible to hold a belief (including a moral belief) in such a way that it inhibits my ability to perceive the universe as it actually is. It's also possible to hold a belief in such a way that it inhibits my ability to achieve my goals.
I agree that one example of that might be if I held a moral belief about how my computer should work in such a way that when my computer fails to work as I think it should, I throw it out the window.
Another example might be if I held the belief that pouring lemonade into the keyboard will improve its performance. That's not at all a moral belief, but it nevertheless interferes with my ability to achieve my goals.

Would you say that if choose to simply accept that my computer behaves the way it does, and I calmly consider possible actions to get the behavior I want, and I don't have the sense that I'm being cheated by a cruel universe, that it follows from all of that that I have no relevant moral beliefs about the situation?

Comment author: Tsujigiri 17 December 2011 05:36:29PM 0 points [-]

Would you say that if choose to simply accept that my computer behaves the way it does, and I calmly consider possible actions to get the behavior I want, and I don't have the sense that I'm being cheated by a cruel universe, that it follows from all of that that I have no relevant moral beliefs about the situation?

I'd say so, yes.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 17 December 2011 08:16:04PM 2 points [-]

OK. Given that, I'm pretty sure I've understood you; thanks for clarifying.

For my own part, it seems to me that when I do that, my behavior is in large part motivated by the belief that it's good to avoid strong emotional responses to events, which is just as much a moral belief as any other.

Comment author: Tsujigiri 17 December 2011 10:11:15PM 0 points [-]

For my own part, it seems to me that when I do that, my behavior is in large part motivated by the belief that it's good to avoid strong emotional responses to events, which is just as much a moral belief as any other.

There are situations where emotions need to be temporarily suppressed -- it needn't involve a moral belief. Getting angry could simply be unhelpful at that moment so you suppress it. To do so, you don't need to believe that its inherently wrong to express strong emotions.

That particular moral would come with its disadvantages. If someone close to you dies, it is healthier to express your sorrow than avoid it. Some people don't change their behavior unless you express anger.

Many think that morality is necessary to control the evil impulses of humans, as if its removal would mean we'd all suddenly start randomly killing each other. Far from saving us from suffering, I'm inclined to think moral beliefs have actually caused much suffering: for example, some religious belief is evil, some political belief is evil, some ethnic group is evil.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 17 December 2011 10:29:30PM 1 point [-]

We seem to be largely talking past each other.

I agree with you that there are situations where suppressing emotions is a useful way of achieving some other goal, and that choosing to suppress emotions in those situations doesn't require believing that there's anything wrong with expressing strong emotions, and that choosing to suppress emotions in those situations without such a belief doesn't require any particular moral belief.

I agree with you that the belief that expressing strong emotions is wrong has disadvantages.

I agree with you that many people have confused beliefs about morality.

I agree with you that much suffering has been caused by moral beliefs, some more so than others.

Tsujigiri comments on Disguised Queries - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (104)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (104)

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