= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Value evolution - 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 (111)
Why? How does being able to be farther from, or closer to, reflective equilibrium, assert something about the existence of better values?
My argument about equilibrium is simply that moral changes over time are not biased to bring a moral system closer to equilibrium. It is a separate argument from whether or not those changes are moral improvements. Those two arguments are separate.
(This is trivially true if you consider the starting point to be the null moral system with no morals. Organisms grow more complicated, and their morals grow more complicated with them. Extrapolating forward in time to superhumans is best imaginged by looking backwards in time to simpler organisms.)
That's not my assertion; it's yours. "Consider an even more significant moral advance", you wrote in your section about masculinity. Are you being facetious, or do you believe that was a moral advance? If it was, how do we know?
Could you explain what you mean by "reflective equilibrium", if it's not the standard definition?
It seems to me that these two arguments are also different:
Moral changes over time do not tend to bring a moral system closer to equilibrium.
and Moral changes over time ought not bring a moral system closer to equilibrium.
It seems to me that you are making a case for 1, but using it as an argument for 2. Am I still missing something?