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.

Ishaan comments on Why didn't people (apparently?) understand the metaethics sequence? - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: ChrisHallquist 29 October 2013 11:04PM

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

Comments (229)

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

Comment author: Ishaan 04 November 2013 10:32:41PM *  0 points [-]

I'm ambiguous about it because I'm describing EY's usage of the word, and he's been ambiguous about it.

I typically adapt my usage to the person who I'm talking to, but the way that I typically define "good" in my own head is: "The subset of my preferences which do not in any way reference myself as a person"...or in other words, the behavior which I would prefer if I cared about everyone equally (If I was not selfish and didn't prefer my in-group).

Under my usage, different people can have different conceptions of good. "Good" is a function of the agent making the judgement.

A pebble-sorter might selfishly want to make every pebble pile themselves, but they also might think that increasing the total number of pebble piles in general is "good". Then, according to the Pebblesorters, a "good" pebble-sorter would put overall-prime-pebble-pile-maximization above their own personal -prime-pebble-pile-productivity. According to the Babyeaters, "good" baby-eater would eat babies indiscriminately, even if they selfishly might want to spare their own. According to humans, Pebble sorter values are alien and baby-eater values are evil.