5 ms·

Use the machine on yourself first. Then you're guaranteed to make the moral decision.

by jjs 16y ago

SlyShy 16y ago
I'll give you props for the clever answer that circumvents the question. ;)
- xenophanes 16y ago
  It's a good answer, not just clever. The issue he's addressing, clarified, is, "What if we had a source of infallible (moral) knowledge?" Then, "ask that source, not me, you, or any other fallible human" is not just clever but correct. However, infallible sources of knowledge badly violate everything we know about epistemology. So don't expect to actually find one. What interests me more is this issue: If I had a magnet that made people act a certain way, and I thought that certain way was moral/good, then should I use it on people? The answer then is no, in the event that I disagree with someone about what's good, I shouldn't force them with magnets; it could be me who is mistaken not them. I should instead persuade them to use the magnet voluntarily. What's good about a discussion with attempted persuasion is it could go either way. I could end up persuaded, or him. This is different than using the magnet which can't go either way, so if it's a mistake there's no possibility of it being corrected.
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    The issue he's addressing, clarified, is, "What if we had a source of infallible (moral) knowledge?" Er, that's not a clarification of "The situation I envision is a machine that can be programmed to produce some set of "morality" as it were." It's a completely different thing.
    - xenophanes 16y ago
      > What if there were a machine to make everyone moral? is the issue addressed by jjs
      - randallsquared 16y ago
        But since SlyShy started the thread, and jjs replied to him, I think I'll go with SlyShy's expansion of what he meant. Feel free to choose for yourself what SlyShy was talking about, but let's not confuse things by bringing jjs into it, hm? ;) Edit: aaaand I missed that the poster you were replying to was also SlyShy, changing the point of your comment. Nevermind me. Let's move along. Nothing to see.
pierrefar 16y ago
Won't work. You have to choose the machine's moral decision outcome before you use it, which means that you're making the decision while still "immoral" (for the lack of a better word).
- xenophanes 16y ago
  The question "What if there were a machine to make everyone moral?" implicitly assumed it would make people moral, whatever that is, as a premise, rather than moral according to someone's judgment. This reading may be debatable, but I think that's how he took it.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I suppose behaving morally is two problems, then: a) Deciding what is moral, and b) Doing it even if you don't want to. A machine which helped you do (b) would be useful even if it couldn't do (a).

Use the machine on yourself first. Then you're guaranteed to make the moral decision.

by jjs 16y ago

Use the machine on yourself first. Then you're guaranteed to make the moral decision.

SlyShy 16y ago

I'll give you props for the clever answer that circumvents the question. ;)

xenophanes 16y ago
It's a good answer, not just clever. The issue he's addressing, clarified, is, "What if we had a source of infallible (moral) knowledge?" Then, "ask that source, not me, you, or any other fallible human" is not just clever but correct. However, infallible sources of knowledge badly violate everything we know about epistemology. So don't expect to actually find one. What interests me more is this issue: If I had a magnet that made people act a certain way, and I thought that certain way was moral/good, then should I use it on people? The answer then is no, in the event that I disagree with someone about what's good, I shouldn't force them with magnets; it could be me who is mistaken not them. I should instead persuade them to use the magnet voluntarily. What's good about a discussion with attempted persuasion is it could go either way. I could end up persuaded, or him. This is different than using the magnet which can't go either way, so if it's a mistake there's no possibility of it being corrected.
- randallsquared 16y ago
  The issue he's addressing, clarified, is, "What if we had a source of infallible (moral) knowledge?" Er, that's not a clarification of "The situation I envision is a machine that can be programmed to produce some set of "morality" as it were." It's a completely different thing.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    > What if there were a machine to make everyone moral? is the issue addressed by jjs
    - randallsquared 16y ago
      But since SlyShy started the thread, and jjs replied to him, I think I'll go with SlyShy's expansion of what he meant. Feel free to choose for yourself what SlyShy was talking about, but let's not confuse things by bringing jjs into it, hm? ;) Edit: aaaand I missed that the poster you were replying to was also SlyShy, changing the point of your comment. Nevermind me. Let's move along. Nothing to see.

pierrefar 16y ago

Won't work. You have to choose the machine's moral decision outcome before you use it, which means that you're making the decision while still "immoral" (for the lack of a better word).

xenophanes 16y ago
The question "What if there were a machine to make everyone moral?" implicitly assumed it would make people moral, whatever that is, as a premise, rather than moral according to someone's judgment. This reading may be debatable, but I think that's how he took it.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I suppose behaving morally is two problems, then: a) Deciding what is moral, and b) Doing it even if you don't want to. A machine which helped you do (b) would be useful even if it couldn't do (a).