3 ms·
Either too much chaos or too much order are indeed failure conditions that appear in our history/stories/myths. So I'd not go to either extreme of that spectrum
by janto 5y ago
Either too much chaos or too much order are indeed failure conditions that appear in our history/stories/myths. So I'd not go to either extreme of that spectrum.
Merely persisting is not sufficient for something to be moral, but it is a necessary requirement. We need principles on how to behave in repeated interactions and situations over long periods, or bad things will eventually happen. That's part of the purpose of moral truths you were raising a question about.
I'd just point out that ancient Egypt had developed moral-sensemaking technology that were state of the art at the time. It's the best we as humans could do to live in a large ecosystem and we're standing on their shoulders. It's not surprising that we would find fault.
- DarylZero 5y agoThe pure game theory idea doesn't work because it won't be internally consistent -- we understand morality isn't supposed to vary from person to person depending on how powerful their social position is.
- janto 5y agoWhen you say we "understand" what it's supposed to be, what do you mean? That morality is an attempt to generalize required behaviour over different situations was the point. The utility of the morality project is that has the goal of preventing any situation from going to hell. That's what makes the game compelling to participants. From a selfish game theory perspective, the repeated interactions is the argument for it.
- DarylZero 5y agoOur common understanding of the concept of morality is something that is universal. We don't accept that there should be a different morality for the king vs. the peasant.