3 ms·
There's no moral obligation to do the maximum possible good. A moral system that describes people who selflessly do good as immoral is a bad system.
by Stupulous 6y ago
There's no moral obligation to do the maximum possible good. A moral system that describes people who selflessly do good as immoral is a bad system.
- colinmhayes 6y agoThe only moral obligation is to maximize possible good.
- baseballdork 6y agoHow would a person determine the optimal action to achieve the maximum possible good?
- colinmhayes 6y agogivewell and 80000 hours to start. Soul searching to really get to the bottom of it.
- bluGill 6y agoWe haven't even agreed on what good means.
- Stupulous 6y agoIs it your belief then that everyone is immoral? Or do you have any examples of someone maximising possible good? The most obvious problem with such a system is that you're a bad person regardless of what you do, so there is no value in doing good unless you're a superintelligence. You say as much above- people make immoral decisions (by your evaluation) constantly, so it doesn't really matter whether you do. You seem to be angling above for a world where people who care about others feel constant shame because they're not doing enough, while selfish, shameless people get to lead happy lives. That seems immoral, even by my much lower standards.
- colinmhayes 6y agoThere is never value in doing good outside of the lack of shame it gives you. That doesn't change once you realize eating meat and donating to ineffective domestic charities are immoral. I think labeling people as good or bad is a mistake. We make good or bad choices, but it's impossible to fit us into binary good/bad based off those choices since there's no objective level of good you have to do to be a good person. I don't think you being unhappy with the conclusion means it's wrong.
- Stupulous 6y agoI find that first sentence shocking. Perhaps we're just different types of people, but I derive a great deal of happiness from making others happy, and, moreover, I think there is fundamental value in increasing the average happiness in the universe. Shame, for me, is chiefly a driver of inaction. I will never not feel it, so why concern myself with it at all? There is always a better choice, so I dedicate time that could be used to make the world a better place (albeit innefficiently) to trying to figure out which choice out of an infinity is best. I agree that labelling people as good or bad is a mistake. In fact, my issue here is that you explicitly labelled everyone as a bad person. Is this not what you meant to say? I don't believe I said your conclusion makes me unhappy, my intent was to say that your conclusion is immoral and, as a moral position, it is therefore wrong.
- collyw 6y agoPeople definition's of good will vary. A strict Muslim and a gay man will probably have quite different interpretations of "good". ISIS probably believe they are acting in a "good" way, it's the strictest interpretation of the word of god after all. Trying not to do harm would be an easier goal to define.