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.

Gunnar_Zarncke comments on Systemic risk: a moral tale of ten insurance companies - Less Wrong Discussion

26 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 17 November 2014 04:43PM

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

Comments (18)

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

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 18 November 2014 12:03:21AM 2 points [-]

But I don't understand what does the adjective "moral" in the title refer to.

I think it's moral in the same way as the tragedy of the commons is moral.

Comment author: Lumifer 18 November 2014 02:26:27AM -1 points [-]

That may well be so, because I don't understand what does the adjective "moral" have to do with the tragedy of the commons, too.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 19 November 2014 12:20:50AM -1 points [-]

It has to do with reasoning about good and bad outcomes, incentives, choices of action ... in what way is that not moral reasoning?

Comment author: Lumifer 19 November 2014 02:28:41AM -1 points [-]

If you stick your hand into the fire you'll get burned. If you don't, you won't. See: "reasoning about good and bad outcomes, incentives, choices of action". Is that moral reasoning?

Comment author: fubarobfusco 19 November 2014 07:11:56AM *  0 points [-]

Quite a lot of both traditional and philosophical moral views attribute negative value to self-destructive behavior, actually.

Comment author: Lumifer 19 November 2014 03:28:34PM *  -1 points [-]

I don't see anything self-destructive about sticking your hand into a fire. I've done it and I'm still around :-P

On a bit more serious note, you're confusing moral reasoning itself with the subject of moral reasoning.