12 ms·

Exactly, human desires, morals and all other sources of 'ought' are ultimately influenced by the way humans 'are'. So if you took in account whole evolutionary

Exactly, human desires, morals and all other sources of 'ought' are ultimately influenced by the way humans 'are'. So if you took in account whole evolutionary history, the way it influenced culture, the way culture developed itself based on that and other external influences (all 'is' questions), you would eventually arrive at human moral framework and that would let you generate 'ought' statements. Basically what we as humans do every day.

perfmode 7y ago
How do you know one would eventually?
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  Good question. There is no reason to think otherwise at the moment and research in physics, biology, neuroscience, psychology and sociology kinda points that way? And I know that as well as I know anything I'm not an expert in -- from my own cursory review and stated opinions of people who are experts (again, as far as I know). In other words, it would be surprising otherwise? Our morals/desires depend on the way we are built and they dictate the 'oughts', thus providing a link from 'is'. And of course it is possible that we can never have enough information to decompile our own values because it is lost in compression, so we'll be stuck with dealing with a black box. But this is a technical limitation, not a philosophical one, and for a simpler system (for example a AGI if one can be built understandably) we would be able to derive its 'oughts' from what it 'is'.
  - perfmode 7y ago
    Your prediction without proof is about as bankable as a prediction without proof of P == NP or P != NP. Just because something is intuitive doesn’t make it true.
CM30 7y ago
So if psychopaths were 100% of the population, and empathy didn't exist at all, would that make most morals null and void? I think most would agree that a useful moral code shouldn't entirely be relativistic, and that an entire society can be in the wrong even if everyone in it considers their actions just.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  A species of sentient hermit crabs would have entirely different moral intuitions from a species of sentient apes. Take this [0] as fictional evidence. :) Empathy doesn't have much to do with morals, it is closer to a mechanism of knowing what the other entity feels. This is useful in antagonistic scenarios as well as in cooperative ones. What you use it for is entirely up to you (and your built-in morals). I agree that entire society can be wrong, even if all other societies of a given species share that opinion at the time. Where relativism would come in is where there is a major difference in mind architecture. [0] - https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HawFh7RvDM4RyoJ2d/three-worlds-collide-0-8 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HawFh7RvDM4RyoJ2d/three-worl...
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  Exactly so: most existent people (myself included) would still insist the current "oughts" still apply in a universe of psychopaths. The question is why. Given that we can not directly observe or measure ought-ness, there must be some psychological feature that evolved to created the idea in us. Further more, that feature is critically necessary for us, often more than life itself. We also know it breaks down in hypotheticals. In that example about a world of psychopaths, most would agree right and wrong remain constant. But a different hypothetical, where god and sacred texts say the exact opposite of what they do, we would not see as many people saying their god would now be wrong. Furthermore, we do know somethings about "ought" like that it is not entirely relative, remains constant across world changes and, is vital to pursue. But we don't know were it comes from and why it varies slightly among cultures. So while we know right from wrong and that such distinctions are vital, we don't know how we know this. It might be that what I am describing is not quite what is meant by "ought". But there are other vital "self evident" concepts that needed adjustment to their definitions yet those adjustments neither destroy the entire concept nor even make any practical difference. Time, for example, is not quite what people intuit and heat seems self evidently entirely different than light yet is not. Yet those facts make no difference in every day life. I expect a better understanding of the origin of ethics will follow that pattern.
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago

perfmode 7y ago

How do you know one would eventually?

UnFleshedOne 7y ago
Good question. There is no reason to think otherwise at the moment and research in physics, biology, neuroscience, psychology and sociology kinda points that way? And I know that as well as I know anything I'm not an expert in -- from my own cursory review and stated opinions of people who are experts (again, as far as I know). In other words, it would be surprising otherwise? Our morals/desires depend on the way we are built and they dictate the 'oughts', thus providing a link from 'is'. And of course it is possible that we can never have enough information to decompile our own values because it is lost in compression, so we'll be stuck with dealing with a black box. But this is a technical limitation, not a philosophical one, and for a simpler system (for example a AGI if one can be built understandably) we would be able to derive its 'oughts' from what it 'is'.
- perfmode 7y ago
  Your prediction without proof is about as bankable as a prediction without proof of P == NP or P != NP. Just because something is intuitive doesn’t make it true.

CM30 7y ago

So if psychopaths were 100% of the population, and empathy didn't exist at all, would that make most morals null and void? I think most would agree that a useful moral code shouldn't entirely be relativistic, and that an entire society can be in the wrong even if everyone in it considers their actions just.

UnFleshedOne 7y ago
A species of sentient hermit crabs would have entirely different moral intuitions from a species of sentient apes. Take this [0] as fictional evidence. :) Empathy doesn't have much to do with morals, it is closer to a mechanism of knowing what the other entity feels. This is useful in antagonistic scenarios as well as in cooperative ones. What you use it for is entirely up to you (and your built-in morals). I agree that entire society can be wrong, even if all other societies of a given species share that opinion at the time. Where relativism would come in is where there is a major difference in mind architecture. [0] - https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HawFh7RvDM4RyoJ2d/three-worlds-collide-0-8 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HawFh7RvDM4RyoJ2d/three-worl...
TomMckenny 7y ago
Exactly so: most existent people (myself included) would still insist the current "oughts" still apply in a universe of psychopaths. The question is why. Given that we can not directly observe or measure ought-ness, there must be some psychological feature that evolved to created the idea in us. Further more, that feature is critically necessary for us, often more than life itself. We also know it breaks down in hypotheticals. In that example about a world of psychopaths, most would agree right and wrong remain constant. But a different hypothetical, where god and sacred texts say the exact opposite of what they do, we would not see as many people saying their god would now be wrong. Furthermore, we do know somethings about "ought" like that it is not entirely relative, remains constant across world changes and, is vital to pursue. But we don't know were it comes from and why it varies slightly among cultures. So while we know right from wrong and that such distinctions are vital, we don't know how we know this. It might be that what I am describing is not quite what is meant by "ought". But there are other vital "self evident" concepts that needed adjustment to their definitions yet those adjustments neither destroy the entire concept nor even make any practical difference. Time, for example, is not quite what people intuit and heat seems self evidently entirely different than light yet is not. Yet those facts make no difference in every day life. I expect a better understanding of the origin of ethics will follow that pattern.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago