= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 6 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (541)
Going from "there is no absolute morality" to "there is no basis for calling agent A morally superior to agent B" is a much broader jump than you make it seem here. The first part I agree with; the second part is much less clear to me.
If by "basis" you mean "absolute basis," well, OK, but so what?
If Tolkien has believed that rooting for Frodo over Sauron was morally equivalent to rooting for Arsenal over Manchester United, the LotR would have been very different.
That's certainly true.
What else could you possibly mean other than absolute basis? That's not a rhetorical question; I'd appreciate seeing it spelled out. You can't say "Agent A is morally superior to agent B" in anything but absolute terms. Otherwise, you can only say, "Agent A is morally superior to agent B from my perspective, which is close to agent A; but someone else at a position equally close to agent B might say with equal validity that agent B is morally superior to agent A." And that is a very different statement!
I can call Gandalf morally superior to Sauron (1) on the basis of my moral standards.
If I'm understanding your question correctly, you think I can't possibly do this; that my own moral standards aren't sufficient basis for calling Gandalf morally superior to Sauron; that I have to invoke an absolute morality in order to do that.
Is that right? I have to admit, that strikes me as a silly idea, but I assure you I'm not mocking you here... I can't come up with any other interpretation of your question. If you mean something different, I'd appreciate correction.
(1) Actually, it has been long enough ago since I read LoTR that I'm not actually certain of that judgment... I can't recall what Sauron actually did beyond being everyone's chosen enemy. As I recall, we don't actually get to see much of Sauron's activity. But I'm assuming for the sake of the argument that if I reread the books I would in fact conclude he was morally inferior to Gandalf.
Isn't it possible to condemn Sauron's moral stance as inconsistent (i.e. irrational)? If Gandalf, on the other hand, espouses and practices a consistent morality, isn't that grounds for calling Gandalf morally superior to Sauron, without claiming the existence of absolute moral standards?
Well, except you've assigned "consistency" absolute moral value, the same way you might assign "saving the world" or "making rings that suck out peoples' souls" moral value.
No, "consistency" is another cheap approximation of morality that doesn't match our intuitions, even our intuitions informed by knowledge and reflection.
There could be agents with a perfectly consistent criteria for which actions it considers "right" and which actions it considers "wrong", that would still allow morally abhorent actions.