3 ms·

I think it's up to you, it's a moral principle, you can apply it (or not) in myriad of ways. And people do.. and then they are called out as hypocrites. :-) I

by js8 11y ago

I think it's up to you, it's a moral principle, you can apply it (or not) in myriad of ways. And people do.. and then they are called out as hypocrites. :-) I am not actually sure if what we disagree on has a name. You seem to think that we should not seek and follow unifying moral principles and strive for consistency, but I do. And for sure I am hypocritical in that, too.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
No, I agree that we should seek and follow unifying moral principles - but we also need to constantly check them against the real world and see if they work. They are supposed to help us lead good life together, and be an optimization - not a replacement for reason. So far the best unifying moral principle I've found is "don't be a douchebag". The world is complicated, and the more one learns about it, the better their "unified moral principles" will be - conversely, the less they know, the more their moral principles will be inadequate and possibly harmful. That person who is totally 100% against government dictating anything may change their mind when they learn about things like coordination problems, tragedy of the commons, etc. But then again, they might not. Still, their opinion will be more nuanced and better calibrated with the reality because they took into consideration the complexity of human interactions. There are countless gems like that. Did you know that people's minds can really be different? That some people believed everyone can do mental images in their head[0]. Others believed that it's bullshit. Everyone called each other liars for centuries until eventually we've figured out that some people can do that, and others can't. There are other examples too; knowing that should affect one's empathy and view of their opponents. Maybe they're not evil people, maybe they genuinely don't think in the same way you do? Etc. My point is - it's not hypocritical to seek underlying unifying moral principles. It's actually good science, it's pragmatic, and it's what scientists are doing in other fields. But the most important thing is that those principles have to correspond to observable reality, because that's their only value - the value of prediction. Will following them make people happy? Reality is under no obligation to follow our imaginary political ideologies. And generally, it doesn't. [0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/

by js8 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago

No, I agree that we should seek and follow unifying moral principles - but we also need to constantly check them against the real world and see if they work. They are supposed to help us lead good life together, and be an optimization - not a replacement for reason. So far the best unifying moral principle I've found is "don't be a douchebag". The world is complicated, and the more one learns about it, the better their "unified moral principles" will be - conversely, the less they know, the more their moral principles will be inadequate and possibly harmful. That person who is totally 100% against government dictating anything may change their mind when they learn about things like coordination problems, tragedy of the commons, etc. But then again, they might not. Still, their opinion will be more nuanced and better calibrated with the reality because they took into consideration the complexity of human interactions. There are countless gems like that. Did you know that people's minds can really be different? That some people believed everyone can do mental images in their head[0]. Others believed that it's bullshit. Everyone called each other liars for centuries until eventually we've figured out that some people can do that, and others can't. There are other examples too; knowing that should affect one's empathy and view of their opponents. Maybe they're not evil people, maybe they genuinely don't think in the same way you do? Etc. My point is - it's not hypocritical to seek underlying unifying moral principles. It's actually good science, it's pragmatic, and it's what scientists are doing in other fields. But the most important thing is that those principles have to correspond to observable reality, because that's their only value - the value of prediction. Will following them make people happy? Reality is under no obligation to follow our imaginary political ideologies. And generally, it doesn't. [0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/