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.

tog comments on What level of compassion do you consider normal, expected, mandatory etc. ? - Less Wrong Discussion

9 [deleted] 10 April 2015 12:57PM

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

Comments (95)

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

Comment author: tog 11 April 2015 04:14:13PM 0 points [-]

"Tit-for-tat is a better strategy than Cooperate-Bot."

Can you use this premise in an explicit argument that expected reciprocation should be a factor in your decision to be nice toward others. How big a factor, relative to others (e.g. what maximises utility)? If there's an easy link to such an argument, all the better!

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 12 April 2015 12:15:58PM *  4 points [-]

If the problem you are trying to solve is how to motivate morality at the societal level, to a random bunch of people with varying preferences, then expected reciprocation is very important.

Under other assumptions, it isnt: for instance, forms of egoism, where you never risk any possible loss, and forms of altruism where only acts performed without expectation of reciprication are truly good.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 April 2015 06:28:00PM 1 point [-]

Can you give an explicit argument for why you"should" maximize utility for everyone, instead of just for yourself?

Comment author: tog 15 April 2015 03:07:08PM 0 points [-]

Some people offer arguments - eg http://philpapers.org/archive/SINTEA-3.pdf - and for some people it's a basic belief or value not based on argument.

Comment author: [deleted] 17 April 2015 05:01:38PM 0 points [-]

Did you edit your original comment? When i first read it, I thought it was saying the opposite of what it now seems to say... I actually agree with it now - should is not universal, it depends on your goals.

P.S That paper you provide actually argues hedonism, not utlilitarianism :).

Comment author: tog 20 April 2015 10:47:33PM 0 points [-]

Did you edit your original comment?

Not that I recall

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 12 April 2015 07:35:10PM 0 points [-]

The simple explanation is that it it's what should means. Beyond that, it would be helpful to have a more specific question..,whether you are questioning the rationality of morality,.or the morality of altruism ,. or whatever,