3 ms·
> but how? I think it's quite simple - subjective experience. Under the assumption that others experience things (much like you do) you can just ask or infer w
by YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
> but how?
I think it's quite simple - subjective experience. Under the assumption that others experience things (much like you do) you can just ask or infer what would they prefer, and what would cause pain. You can be wrong about what would they prefer (and they can be wrong), but it doesn't mean there's no coherent morality hiding under such mistakes.
And I don't think that it's much to assume. I think it's no more that the general assumption that "causes have effects", or that there are any invariants we can attribute to the universe (like laws of physics).
Note that this notion of morality extends beyond humans - for example to animals and potentially AI systems.
- leetcrew 7y agoI don't want to cause the subjective experience of pain, and I assume you don't want to either. the fact that we want to avoid pain, even the fact that (possibly) we have evolved to want to avoid harming fellow humans (and possibly other sentient beings) is a statement of what "is". unless you are willing to reduce morality to mere pragmatism, it is not at all clear how you get to an "ought" from these facts. I'm not saying this is some huge conundrum that we need to solve before we decide to go get breakfast without killing everyone we see along the way, but the problem as stated is a hard one.
- YjSe2GMQ 7y agoI am willing to reduce morality to mere pragmatism. After all what's more than just experience, shaped by such pragmatism? And I think all moral systems are essentially built around avoiding pain. Even if you allow for supernatural beings and follow the tracks of some religion - it's still a concern over well being, except in the after-life (for which we may or may not have much evidence for ...).