5 ms·

Decisions have always been mostly based on feelings. The foundation for all decisions is and always has been values. Values are opinions based on feelings. From

Decisions have always been mostly based on feelings. The foundation for all decisions is and always has been values. Values are opinions based on feelings. From the foundation of values, you can use logic to ensure that you are consistently following your values (feelings) but the foundation is still emotional. In the past, american culture (at least in the media) was more of a monoculture, which meant more shared values. When you derived decisions from the shared values using logic, you would come to the same place using the same path. This could make it appear that people were mostly using logic. An example of what I mean by values are: Optimizing for economic efficiency is more important than the suffering of the people at the bottom. Or increasing the average wealth is more important than decreasing the variance of wealth. People having free healthcare is more important than property rights. In any debate or discussion, the logic is virtually irrelevant when the values arent shared.

jhgb 5y ago
> The foundation for all decisions is and always has been values. Values are opinions based on feelings. That line of reasoning would lead you to conclude that everything is feeling. But you give examples of things that can eventually be quantified as well. I don't see how some of those objective functions are qualitatively different from the rest.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  All logical systems must be grounded in axioms; your values are the axioms of your beliefs. You can logically derive inferences from your values, but your values cannot be derived from anything. Anything derived must rest on something lower, so there must be a lowest thing that is not a derivative. This is a universal truth. It's as true in mathematics (Peano axioms) as it is in personal beliefs.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    But of course axioms are traditionally defined as self-evident truths, not as "feelings". Furthermore whenever axioms are involved, the effort is to shrink their set as tightly as possible. I suspect that "feeling-oriented people" (for a lack of better term) are not the ones doing this, and if that is the case, I'd consider that an important difference from the people who are doing this, and hence I'd consider statements along the lines of "trying to be rational doesn't actually matter since it's feelings all the way down anyway" as unhelpful platitudes.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      OK then, what's a set of self evident moral values that you can build a moral system from? Because both libertarians and communists think they have one, and they can't both be right. Which set of values you choose is fundamentally irrational. Edit: axioms aren't exactly self evident truths anyway - the number system defined by the Peano axioms is not a feature of the universe, but of the human mind. Of course, mathematics are extremely useful and map roughly onto reality, but one should never mistake the map for the territory. Not saying you are, but the distinction is important.
      - jhgb 5y ago
        Well, they may very well be both wrong -- and perhaps that's the likely answer. What is the intersection may be an interesting question. I can't prove it but it seems to me that finding the smallest intersection should exclude the subjective variations.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        So if we haven't found a rational moral system, who's to say it exists at all? Also, to say that the axioms being irrational means the system is irrational is incorrect. Logical systems can only be internally consistent within the bounds of their parameters, not universally consistent with regard to base reality. What matters is what emerges from the axioms and how useful it is.
        jhgb 5y ago
        I'm pretty sure that an empty rational moral system would still be a rational moral system. You'd just have more freedom in it. And regarding axioms, that's why you try to have as few as possible -- so that even though you can't prove them, you have at least the fewest possible points of failure possible.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        So if an empty moral system is rational, and that's the only one we have, isn't that the same as saying there is no rational moral system? I agree that you want to minimise axioms, but not because they're a source for error - after all, the concept of "valid" flows entirely from not violating the axioms - but because internal consistency leans on axioms not contradicting each other. That might have been what you meant though, in which case we're in agreement.

jhgb 5y ago

> The foundation for all decisions is and always has been values. Values are opinions based on feelings. That line of reasoning would lead you to conclude that everything is feeling. But you give examples of things that can eventually be quantified as well. I don't see how some of those objective functions are qualitatively different from the rest.

beaconstudios 5y ago
All logical systems must be grounded in axioms; your values are the axioms of your beliefs. You can logically derive inferences from your values, but your values cannot be derived from anything. Anything derived must rest on something lower, so there must be a lowest thing that is not a derivative. This is a universal truth. It's as true in mathematics (Peano axioms) as it is in personal beliefs.
- jhgb 5y ago
  But of course axioms are traditionally defined as self-evident truths, not as "feelings". Furthermore whenever axioms are involved, the effort is to shrink their set as tightly as possible. I suspect that "feeling-oriented people" (for a lack of better term) are not the ones doing this, and if that is the case, I'd consider that an important difference from the people who are doing this, and hence I'd consider statements along the lines of "trying to be rational doesn't actually matter since it's feelings all the way down anyway" as unhelpful platitudes.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    OK then, what's a set of self evident moral values that you can build a moral system from? Because both libertarians and communists think they have one, and they can't both be right. Which set of values you choose is fundamentally irrational. Edit: axioms aren't exactly self evident truths anyway - the number system defined by the Peano axioms is not a feature of the universe, but of the human mind. Of course, mathematics are extremely useful and map roughly onto reality, but one should never mistake the map for the territory. Not saying you are, but the distinction is important.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      Well, they may very well be both wrong -- and perhaps that's the likely answer. What is the intersection may be an interesting question. I can't prove it but it seems to me that finding the smallest intersection should exclude the subjective variations.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        So if we haven't found a rational moral system, who's to say it exists at all? Also, to say that the axioms being irrational means the system is irrational is incorrect. Logical systems can only be internally consistent within the bounds of their parameters, not universally consistent with regard to base reality. What matters is what emerges from the axioms and how useful it is.
        jhgb 5y ago
        I'm pretty sure that an empty rational moral system would still be a rational moral system. You'd just have more freedom in it. And regarding axioms, that's why you try to have as few as possible -- so that even though you can't prove them, you have at least the fewest possible points of failure possible.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        So if an empty moral system is rational, and that's the only one we have, isn't that the same as saying there is no rational moral system? I agree that you want to minimise axioms, but not because they're a source for error - after all, the concept of "valid" flows entirely from not violating the axioms - but because internal consistency leans on axioms not contradicting each other. That might have been what you meant though, in which case we're in agreement.