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.

Dolores1984 comments on Less Wrong views on morality? - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: hankx7787 05 July 2012 05:04PM

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

Comments (145)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Dolores1984 06 July 2012 04:44:58PM 2 points [-]

Well, an awful lot of what we think of as morality is dictated, ultimately, by game theory. Which is pretty universal, as far as I can tell. Rational-as-in-winning agents will tend to favor tit-for-tat strategies, from which much of morality can be systematically derived.

Comment author: Lightwave 07 July 2012 10:43:56AM *  3 points [-]

from which much of morality can be systematically derived

Not all of it, though, because you still need some "core" or "terminal" values that you use do decide what counts as a win. In fact, all the stuff that's derived from game theory seems to be what we call instrumental values, and they're in some sense the less important ones, the larger portion of the arguments about morality end up being about those "terminal" values, if they even exist.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 July 2012 04:03:17PM 2 points [-]

You are talking about different things Dolores is talking about "why should I cooperate instead of cheating" kind of morality. You on the other hand are talking about meta-ethics, that is what is the meaning of right and wrong, what is value etc.

Comment author: Dolores1984 07 July 2012 08:12:54PM 1 point [-]

Indeed. Terminal values are also... pretty personal, in my book. Very similar across the whole of neurologically intact humanity, maybe, but if someone's are different from yours, good bloody luck talking them out of them.