3 ms·

> I think the idea that our preferences are transient, that none are really more right than any other, and that therefore there's nothing really at stake in let

by alecbz 5y ago

> I think the idea that our preferences are transient, that none are really more right than any other, and that therefore there's nothing really at stake in letting your interests be swapped out for different interests, is what I regard as moral relativism. I don't really see this as moral relativism at all? It's maybe a kind of psychological relativism, a la nature vs. nurture. And there, yes, I'm definitely skeptical of the idea that we have "true" underlying desires/preferences/values as opposed to "false"/influenced ones. This is (maybe a bit ironically) sort of inline with Buddhist views of self. Though I don't think you have to go as far as saying that the self is an _illusion_ to at least acknowledge that the self isn't immutable. That said I'm _not_ claiming that any desire is as good as any other. There are certainly desires that are worse to have (smoking, murder) than others.

glenstein 5y ago
>I don't really see this as moral relativism at all? It's maybe a kind of psychological relativism, a la nature vs. nurture These things all overlap, depending on what you are trying to emphasize. So it can be both. If you say it's psychological relativism, nature vs. nurture, whatever else I think there are senses in which those can all be true. I think a pattern I'm seeing here, though, is to say that whatever is at stake in questions of advertising, surely it isn't moral. But morality isn't just trolley problems, it's everyday choices too. It's getting people to eat Dominos, getting people to smoke, getting people to accept credit cards with low introductory rates, it's getting people to pay more for Medicare advantage plans. >This is (maybe a bit ironically) sort of inline with Buddhist views of self. Though I don't think you have to go as far as saying that the self is an _illusion_ to at least acknowledge that the self isn't immutable. I think that's very commendable and good! >And there, yes, I'm definitely skeptical of the idea that we have "true" underlying desires/preferences/values as opposed to "false"/influenced ones. But you're also claiming there are definitely desires that are worse to have than others? And smoking (which is advertised!) is an example.
- alecbz 5y ago
  > whatever is at stake in questions of advertising, surely it isn't moral Wait what? No, of course it is, almost everything effects morality in some way. > But you're also claiming there are definitely desires that are worse to have than others? Yes? I'm not seeing the contradiction. Whether a desire is bad or not is unrelated to whether it's a "true" desire (or whether the idea of true desires makes any sense at all). Dumb on-the-spot analogy: there's a bunch of silver metallic balls rolling down different tubes, the tubes are painted so as they roll the balls get colored different colors. Further down, the balls all get merged and then a robot destroys any red balls, and sorts blue balls into one box and green balls into another. Being red is clearly worse for the balls (smoking is clearly bad for you, moral absolutism). But the balls didn't start out red, green, or blue, their environment molded them. If a blue ball gets painted green at some point in the future, it doesn't make sense to say that the ball is _really_ blue: the ball was metallic, all of its color was painted on one way or the other.

by alecbz 5y ago

glenstein 5y ago

>I don't really see this as moral relativism at all? It's maybe a kind of psychological relativism, a la nature vs. nurture These things all overlap, depending on what you are trying to emphasize. So it can be both. If you say it's psychological relativism, nature vs. nurture, whatever else I think there are senses in which those can all be true. I think a pattern I'm seeing here, though, is to say that whatever is at stake in questions of advertising, surely it isn't moral. But morality isn't just trolley problems, it's everyday choices too. It's getting people to eat Dominos, getting people to smoke, getting people to accept credit cards with low introductory rates, it's getting people to pay more for Medicare advantage plans. >This is (maybe a bit ironically) sort of inline with Buddhist views of self. Though I don't think you have to go as far as saying that the self is an _illusion_ to at least acknowledge that the self isn't immutable. I think that's very commendable and good! >And there, yes, I'm definitely skeptical of the idea that we have "true" underlying desires/preferences/values as opposed to "false"/influenced ones. But you're also claiming there are definitely desires that are worse to have than others? And smoking (which is advertised!) is an example.

alecbz 5y ago
> whatever is at stake in questions of advertising, surely it isn't moral Wait what? No, of course it is, almost everything effects morality in some way. > But you're also claiming there are definitely desires that are worse to have than others? Yes? I'm not seeing the contradiction. Whether a desire is bad or not is unrelated to whether it's a "true" desire (or whether the idea of true desires makes any sense at all). Dumb on-the-spot analogy: there's a bunch of silver metallic balls rolling down different tubes, the tubes are painted so as they roll the balls get colored different colors. Further down, the balls all get merged and then a robot destroys any red balls, and sorts blue balls into one box and green balls into another. Being red is clearly worse for the balls (smoking is clearly bad for you, moral absolutism). But the balls didn't start out red, green, or blue, their environment molded them. If a blue ball gets painted green at some point in the future, it doesn't make sense to say that the ball is _really_ blue: the ball was metallic, all of its color was painted on one way or the other.