= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on High energy ethics and general moral relativity - 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 (15)
TL;DR: Once in a while a wild extrapolation of an earlier limited model turns out to match a later, more comprehensive one. This happens in ethics, as well as in physics. Occurrences like that are amplified by the selection bias and should be treated with caution.
(Also, a bunch of applause lights for utilitarianism.)
I agree with the first paragraph of the summary, but as for the second - my point is against turning applause lights for utilitarianism on the grounds of such occurrences, or on any grounds whatsoever. And I also observe that ethics haven't gone as far from Bentham as physics have gone from Newton, which I regard as meta-evidence that the existing models are probably insufficient at best.
yet the OP states
This seems like a normative statement that only makes sense once you have a preference for utilitarianism.
I think this was mainly addressed to people who think it's the end of every question on the subject. In that context, it's toning down.
Also, "I approve of X" cannot be an attempt to shroud X in a positive halo by surrounding it by applause lights.