You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Konkvistador comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: FAWS 11 April 2012 03:39AM

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

Comments (1221)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 12 April 2012 04:30:32PM *  5 points [-]

I don't think I ever claimed to be "good".

surrender their judgement of right and wrong to the mob.

Most people do.

They are difficult to model and surprisingly volatile.

Feature. Not bug.

Comment author: Multiheaded 13 April 2012 06:05:22AM 0 points [-]

I don't think I ever claimed to be "good".

Now, now. Your preferences might not always reveal you wanting "good" things to the exclusion of "evil" ones, but I guess that you're socialized and "brainwashed" well enough to value valuing "good" things above the vast majority of selfish or neutral ones.
You've said before that you'd be scared to self-modify to want what you now want to want... but your moral intuition is fairly ever-present even when you aren't listening to it, right? Or am I just projecting myself?

Comment author: [deleted] 13 April 2012 06:10:02AM 2 points [-]

Well yes but there is quite a big difference between having moral standards and actually living up to them enough to think of oneself as "good". At least in my brain truly "good" people are very rare.

Comment author: Multiheaded 13 April 2012 06:31:05AM 0 points [-]

Haha, the thing is, I was raised partly on D&D, which was my first source of a metaethical theory, and there, at least in theory, much of alignment is defined by intentions (at least, that's how I read it in my teenage years). Then again, I might have twisted that a bit to conform to my own beliefs. Either way, I grew up believing that e.g. a witch who has never actually hurt anyone personally but helps an evil tribe and would betray marauding "heroes" to them can indeed be "Lawful Evil", and, consequentially, a con artist who's sensitive, guilt-ridden and helps the poor sometimes can indeed be "Chaotic Good" (Oskar Schindler - the real one, not Spielberg's flat copy - is a hero for me, his case feels incredibly heart-warming). It's a carticature of my actual feelings, of course, but nonetheless I'm attracted to what is derisively called comic-book morality; I find it, at the very least, better for society than e.g. "rational egoism" informed with Hansonian theory.

Comment author: loserthree 12 April 2012 05:10:38PM 0 points [-]

I don't think I ever claimed to be "good".

That's a very fair complaint. I'll edit my previous post.

They are difficult to model and surprisingly volatile.

Feature. Not bug.

I suppose. Objectivists are less worrisome, but admittedly inferior company. And the rare few who by every appearance are as good for goodness sake as you could ask may not cause worry, but there's always something disquieting about them.