= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Be comfortable with hypocrisy - 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 (78)
What would be for you an example of inconsistent behavior, then?
If you climb the abstraction tree high enough, you can always get to consistency, if only in the form of "Do what your morals tell you to do".
I don't think so. Morals are not syllogisms. In particular, "X is wrong" is a different claim from "X is inconsistent" or "X is not logically coherent".
If you say that eating meat is wrong, but then eat it.
That's true, but "do what your morals tell you to do" is vacuous and not action-guiding. Morality must be action-guiding, and "In [situation], do X" and "In [situation], do what RNG tells you" are both action-guiding.
If I say "Eating meat is wrong, one should never do something wrong, it is sometimes permissible to eat meat", there is a contradiction, and that requires at least one of the three statements to be false.
If you say that eating meat is wrong, and you eat meat, then you are factually wrong about eating meat being morally wrong, you are acting morally wrongly when you eat meat, or both.
It's not clear whether you are incorrect, immoral, or both. However, what you clearly are not doing is acting in a moral manner because it is moral. You can't be doing that if you don't know what's moral, and you can't be doing that if you're acting immorally. You might get lucky and act morally by coincidence, but since that's not something that can be done consistently, there's little point in rewarding it.