Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on The Bedrock of Morality: Arbitrary? - Less Wrong

16 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 August 2008 10:00PM

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

Comments (113)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 15 August 2008 07:28:47PM 3 points [-]

Do the fox and the rabbit disagree? It seems reasonable so say that they do if they meet: the rabbit thinks it should be eating grass, and the fox thinks the rabbit should be in the fox's stomach. They may argue passionately about the rabbit's fate - and even stoop to violence.

Really? I would be interested in hearing their philosophical arguments then as for why the rabbit should be eating grass or the rabbit should be in the fox's stomach. I understand, of course, that the rabbit does eat grass and that the fox does hunt the rabbit, but I was not aware that these were persuasive moral arguments. A rock does roll downhill, but I wasn't aware that this had any particular correlation to whether it should roll downhill - if gravity pulls a rock, it will just as readily roll over a toddler.

It would seem that you are not distinguishing between what a system does and what it should do. The former is not necessarily a statement about the latter; a rock, in rolling over a toddler, is not offering evidence or even argument about the worthlessness of human life - it's just showing that gravity doesn't care. Neither does a fox or rabbit.