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.

ChristianKl comments on Stupid Questions, 2nd half of December - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: Bound_up 23 December 2015 05:31AM

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

Comments (186)

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

Comment author: ChristianKl 25 December 2015 10:23:36PM 0 points [-]

What do you mean with should?

Comment author: RaelwayScot 27 December 2015 10:52:51AM *  0 points [-]

Moral philosophy is a huge topic and it's discourse is not dominated by looking at DNA.

Everyone can choose their preferred state then, at least to the extent it is not indoctrinated or biologically determined. It is rational to invest energy into maintaining or achieving this state (because the state presumably provides you with a steady source of reward), which might involve convincing others of your preferred state or prevent them from threating it (e.g. by putting them into jail). There is likely an absolute truth (to the extent physics is consistent from our point of view), but no absolute morale (because it's all memes in an undirected process). Terrorists do nothing wrong from their point of view, but from mine it threatens my preferred state, so I will try to prevent terrorism. We may seem lucky that many preferred states converge to the same goals which are even fairly sustainable, but that is just an evolutionary necessity and perhaps mostly a result of empathy and the will to survive (otherwise our species wouldn't have survived in paleolithic groups of hunters and gatherers).

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 December 2015 11:25:47AM *  2 points [-]

Basically your argument is: "I can't think of a way to justify morality besides saying that it's my own prefered state, therefore nobody can come up with an argument to justify morality."

Comment author: RaelwayScot 27 December 2015 03:58:06PM 0 points [-]

Is it? I think, the act of convincing other people of your preferred state of the world is exactly what justifying morality is. But that action policy is only a meme, as you said, which is individually chosen based on many criteria (including aesthetics, peer-pressure, consistency).

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 December 2015 04:00:50PM *  1 point [-]

"Only a meme" doesn't negate that it's about something real and that there can be resonable arguments why some memes are better than others.

Comment author: RaelwayScot 27 December 2015 04:17:46PM 0 points [-]

I mean "only a meme" in the sense, that morality is not absolute, but an individual choice. Of course, there can be arguments why some memes are better than others, that happens during the act of individuals convincing each other of their preferences.

Comment author: RaelwayScot 26 December 2015 01:01:31AM *  0 points [-]

I mean a moral terminal goal. But I guess we would be a large step closer to a solution of the control problem if we could specify such a goal.

What I had in mind is something like this: Evolution has provided us with a state which everyone prefers who is healthy (who can survive in a typical situation in which humans have evolved with high probability) and who has an accurate mental representation of reality. That state includes being surrounded by other healthy humans, so by induction everyone must reach this state (and also help others to reach it). I haven't carefully thought this through, but I just want to give an idea for what I'm looking for.

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 December 2015 11:29:57AM 0 points [-]

Evolution doesn't produce terminal goals.

Comment author: RaelwayScot 26 December 2015 03:40:49PM 0 points [-]

What is the motivation behind maximizing QUALY? Does it require certain incentives to be present in the culture (endorsement of altruism) or is it rooted elsewhere?

Comment author: username2 26 December 2015 04:21:08PM 0 points [-]

Many people think that society is supposed to have a goal for some reason. And QUALY is easy to measure.

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 December 2015 03:53:37PM 0 points [-]

Are you asking whether every human being that is alive has a motivation to maximize QUALY?

Comment author: RaelwayScot 26 December 2015 06:24:52PM 0 points [-]

More why doing it is desirable at all. Is it a matter of the culture that currently exists? I mean, is it 'right' to eradicate a certain ethnic group if the majority endorses it?

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 December 2015 09:51:41PM 0 points [-]

Why do you think biology basis has something to do with the answer?

Comment author: RaelwayScot 26 December 2015 11:18:45PM *  0 points [-]

Because then it would argue from features that are built into us. If we can prove the existence of these features with high certainty, then it could perhaps serve as guidance for our decisions.

On the other hand, it is reasonable that evolution does not create such goals because it is an undirected process. Our actions are unrestricted in this regard, and we must only bear the consequences of the system that our species has come up with. What is good is thus decided by consensus. Still, the values we have converged to are shaped by the way we have evolved to behave (e.g. empathy and pain avoidance).

Comment author: ChristianKl 26 December 2015 11:21:03PM 0 points [-]

Our culture is just as backed into us as our DNA. It's all memes.

Comment author: RaelwayScot 26 December 2015 11:44:15PM 0 points [-]

What are the implications of that on how we decide what is are the right things to do?