7 ms·

What does a group spewing incorrect non-sense about reality have to do with morality? Many times these groups takes immortal stances because of their detachmen

by sqeaky 10y ago

What does a group spewing incorrect non-sense about reality have to do with morality? Many times these groups takes immortal stances because of their detachment from reality. For example there is a huge correlation in people who don't care about the suffering global warming causes and religion. Its not really hard to understand either, many modern day american think Jesus will come in their lifetime, so why bother caring about 100 years from now. It even works for things directly against rules in the book. Churchgoers are more likely to be for the death penalty even "thou shall not kill" is most of those religious books. I am not saying all religious people are bad, just that religion does not filter out bad people or bad behavior effectively.

skj 10y ago
It's tough to say things like this in public, because so many people feel so strongly about their religious beliefs (I'm sure if I had any I'd feel strongly about them too). But, the idea that morality is tied to or because of religion is, erm, pure applesauce. To me, morality appears to be the moving zeitgeist of opinions on what makes a proper society. At the risk of derailing this topic, the concept we have of privacy as a moral issue is likely to change as well. The common current idea (which I hold as well, please don't misunderstand) is that one's personal privacy, especially as related to communication, is sacrosanct. But, in a world where it's getting easier and easier to just not give a shit about that and (generally, for 99.9% of the population's personal lives) have no ill effects, people are going to care less and less about data privacy and security, and the zeitgeist will shift. I think that it will be the defining issue of the 21st century, and I have no idea how things will look coming out the other end.
- Nursie 10y ago
  If that zeitgeisty soft morality issue changes I pray to god that our acceptance of flaws and realistic human behaviour from our political class changes too. Because in a world with no privacy, the only people who are going to be squeaky clean are thoae whose lives have been curated from day 1, either through privilege and iron-fisted parent s or through single-mindedness verging on psychosis. People who should in no way be taking power.
  - 794CD01 10y ago
    People, no. AIs, yes. Ppeople shouldn't be in power in the first place.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      That just moves the responsibility from "people" to "people who program the AI".
      - psyc 10y ago
        Not really. There's a threshold where the outcome of an algorithm isn't predictable by the programmer. That threshold is much lower than mildly strong AI. As an example of a comparatively simple algorithm, Notch didn't know where the mountains, caves, oceans would be in the billions of Minecraft worlds - only some of their properties and distribution. If AI programmers determined the AIs' decisions, that would negate the point of AI.
        sqeaky 10y ago
        You presume no malice. I can easily write a bunch of code you can't readily predict the outcome to but I can predict with 100% certainty. The easiest way is to cheat and inject code you don't readily see: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack
    - __jal 10y ago
      1) Invent god. 2) ??? 3) ??? [...] 3.468^10128) ???
    - sqeaky 10y ago
      Who makes the AI?
  - hx87 10y ago
    > If that zeitgeisty soft morality issue changes I pray to god that our acceptance of flaws and realistic human behaviour from our political class changes too. Most countries aside from the USA are pretty blase about their politicians' personal behavior and morality. It's this silly idea that politicians should be paragons of personal virtue, independent of their public and political virtues, that gets the US in such hypocritical binds.
- Domenic_S 10y ago
  > one's personal privacy, especially as related to communication, is sacrosanct Privacy is a fairly modern invention. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it assumes too much to take the concept of sacrosanct privacy as axiomatic.
  - skj 10y ago
    My whole point is that it is not axiomatic, or fundamental, in any way. Instead, it's a consequence of the zeitgeist :) and because of that, I see it disappearing over the course of the coming century.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
On the other hand, people who go to the church are more likely to give to charity, or participate in their community… It seems religion is doing some things right. (Source: Skepticon.)
- malnourish 10y ago
  Are they giving to charities ran by their church (or an affiliation)? Are they giving to their church and it's called charity?
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    > Are they giving to charities ran by their church (or an affiliation)? No idea, and I'm not sure it even matters. Such charities tend to help anyone afflicted by the plight they chose to alleviate. > Are they giving to their church and it's called charity? Since it was coming from a LessWrong contributor in Skepticon, I'd say this is improbable. Most likely, he scanned the study for such errors.
    - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
      Charitable activity provides a lot of political cover for really shitty religiously motivated behavior. For example, giving money to the Salvation Army is probably a net-negative effect on the world.
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        > For example, giving money to the Salvation Army is probably a net-negative effect on the world. What?
        ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        It funds anti-homosexual political activity, attaches onerous religious proselytization to their poverty outreach, subsidizes in-your-face guilt-tripping bell ringers, crowds out other anti-poverty efforts, and reduces the charitable effort that donators bring to more worthwhile causes. It's not literally the worst charity - that probably belongs to Susan G. Komen - but it is pretty terrible.
reitanqild 10y ago
> Churchgoers are more likely to be for the death penalty even "thou shall not kill" is most of those religious books. ...and the ones who are against death penalty for criminals often support abortion. So much for the idea that life is "hallowed". (FTR: I am personally against both.)
- CodeMage 10y ago
  People oppose death penalty for a variety of reasons, not just out of conviction that "life is hallowed".
- RodericDay 10y ago
  There's no conflict in your counter-example.
- forty 10y ago
  Given that you made a link between killing and abortion, it was pretty obvious that you were against abortion. Pro abortion people do not believe abortion is killing anyone.
  - reitanqild 10y ago
    If you read up on the way it is practiced there is a fat chance you will see the link as well. (Hint, they aren't always dead when they come out. Recently (2 years ago IIRC) even nurses who work with this day in and day out started objecting to the practice because as they said; it is completely crazy that on one room they are fighting to save the life of a premature child and on the next they are throwing a towel over an equally old babys face so their mom won't hear it crying before they finally bleed out/and or suffocate.) Also : we are way off topic and I don't want to continue this thread.
    - lolc 10y ago
      These episodes could only happen in late-stage abortions which are very rare. You can call it murder but that doesn't inform the debate about abortion in general.

by sqeaky 10y ago

skj 10y ago

It's tough to say things like this in public, because so many people feel so strongly about their religious beliefs (I'm sure if I had any I'd feel strongly about them too). But, the idea that morality is tied to or because of religion is, erm, pure applesauce. To me, morality appears to be the moving zeitgeist of opinions on what makes a proper society. At the risk of derailing this topic, the concept we have of privacy as a moral issue is likely to change as well. The common current idea (which I hold as well, please don't misunderstand) is that one's personal privacy, especially as related to communication, is sacrosanct. But, in a world where it's getting easier and easier to just not give a shit about that and (generally, for 99.9% of the population's personal lives) have no ill effects, people are going to care less and less about data privacy and security, and the zeitgeist will shift. I think that it will be the defining issue of the 21st century, and I have no idea how things will look coming out the other end.

Nursie 10y ago
If that zeitgeisty soft morality issue changes I pray to god that our acceptance of flaws and realistic human behaviour from our political class changes too. Because in a world with no privacy, the only people who are going to be squeaky clean are thoae whose lives have been curated from day 1, either through privilege and iron-fisted parent s or through single-mindedness verging on psychosis. People who should in no way be taking power.
- 794CD01 10y ago
  People, no. AIs, yes. Ppeople shouldn't be in power in the first place.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    That just moves the responsibility from "people" to "people who program the AI".
    - psyc 10y ago
      Not really. There's a threshold where the outcome of an algorithm isn't predictable by the programmer. That threshold is much lower than mildly strong AI. As an example of a comparatively simple algorithm, Notch didn't know where the mountains, caves, oceans would be in the billions of Minecraft worlds - only some of their properties and distribution. If AI programmers determined the AIs' decisions, that would negate the point of AI.
      - sqeaky 10y ago
        You presume no malice. I can easily write a bunch of code you can't readily predict the outcome to but I can predict with 100% certainty. The easiest way is to cheat and inject code you don't readily see: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack
  - __jal 10y ago
    1) Invent god. 2) ??? 3) ??? [...] 3.468^10128) ???
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    Who makes the AI?
- hx87 10y ago
  > If that zeitgeisty soft morality issue changes I pray to god that our acceptance of flaws and realistic human behaviour from our political class changes too. Most countries aside from the USA are pretty blase about their politicians' personal behavior and morality. It's this silly idea that politicians should be paragons of personal virtue, independent of their public and political virtues, that gets the US in such hypocritical binds.
Domenic_S 10y ago
> one's personal privacy, especially as related to communication, is sacrosanct Privacy is a fairly modern invention. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it assumes too much to take the concept of sacrosanct privacy as axiomatic.
- skj 10y ago
  My whole point is that it is not axiomatic, or fundamental, in any way. Instead, it's a consequence of the zeitgeist :) and because of that, I see it disappearing over the course of the coming century.

loup-vaillant 10y ago

On the other hand, people who go to the church are more likely to give to charity, or participate in their community… It seems religion is doing some things right. (Source: Skepticon.)

malnourish 10y ago
Are they giving to charities ran by their church (or an affiliation)? Are they giving to their church and it's called charity?
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  > Are they giving to charities ran by their church (or an affiliation)? No idea, and I'm not sure it even matters. Such charities tend to help anyone afflicted by the plight they chose to alleviate. > Are they giving to their church and it's called charity? Since it was coming from a LessWrong contributor in Skepticon, I'd say this is improbable. Most likely, he scanned the study for such errors.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    Charitable activity provides a lot of political cover for really shitty religiously motivated behavior. For example, giving money to the Salvation Army is probably a net-negative effect on the world.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      > For example, giving money to the Salvation Army is probably a net-negative effect on the world. What?
      - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        It funds anti-homosexual political activity, attaches onerous religious proselytization to their poverty outreach, subsidizes in-your-face guilt-tripping bell ringers, crowds out other anti-poverty efforts, and reduces the charitable effort that donators bring to more worthwhile causes. It's not literally the worst charity - that probably belongs to Susan G. Komen - but it is pretty terrible.

reitanqild 10y ago

> Churchgoers are more likely to be for the death penalty even "thou shall not kill" is most of those religious books. ...and the ones who are against death penalty for criminals often support abortion. So much for the idea that life is "hallowed". (FTR: I am personally against both.)

CodeMage 10y ago
People oppose death penalty for a variety of reasons, not just out of conviction that "life is hallowed".
RodericDay 10y ago
There's no conflict in your counter-example.
forty 10y ago
Given that you made a link between killing and abortion, it was pretty obvious that you were against abortion. Pro abortion people do not believe abortion is killing anyone.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  If you read up on the way it is practiced there is a fat chance you will see the link as well. (Hint, they aren't always dead when they come out. Recently (2 years ago IIRC) even nurses who work with this day in and day out started objecting to the practice because as they said; it is completely crazy that on one room they are fighting to save the life of a premature child and on the next they are throwing a towel over an equally old babys face so their mom won't hear it crying before they finally bleed out/and or suffocate.) Also : we are way off topic and I don't want to continue this thread.
  - lolc 10y ago
    These episodes could only happen in late-stage abortions which are very rare. You can call it murder but that doesn't inform the debate about abortion in general.