4 ms·

Author of the post here. Thank you for your comments. I'd like to address the main criticism that I see in the comments, which is that I did not specify what i

by fadeyev 14y ago

Author of the post here. Thank you for your comments. I'd like to address the main criticism that I see in the comments, which is that I did not specify what it is that I mean by morality, and what moral system I'm using to make my judgement. The post is not meant to be a complete essay, rather it is a short outline of an idea, much like the rest of the stuff I publish on my blog, most of those posts building on each other like bricks rather than standing alone as a finished structure. That's absolutely my fault and it doesn't help with public consumption, and this is something I need to work on. I am, and will be, writing more thoughts on the subject as the post in this submission hardly covers much ground, but nevertheless, I do stand by the idea presented there. To address the actual point: I do not prescribe a specific moral framework, only that there be one. Morals can come from religion or philosophy (or both), and they should be used to guide design decisions rather than those design decisions being made in isolation. Design decisions made without a moral foundation focus on effectiveness alone, which is not a useful indicator for the good's true worth (again, assuming your life is not amoral, in which case none of that would matter), and what I mean by "true worth" is how that good benefits society and man in light of your moral framework.

nomnomnom 14y ago
That blog post restored a good deal of my faith in smart people in the tech sector... it's looking kinda bleak lately, not a whole lot of actual thought or even reflection going on. Thanks, and all the best.
eevilspock 14y ago
I feel that much of the negative comments are a defensive reaction. Coming to Hacker News and pointing out, even if indirectly, that the tricks of the startup trade are of questionable morality is like showing up at an decadent dinner party and pulling out photos of starving third world children.
- eevilspock 14y ago
  Even more telling is that my statement above is getting downvotes, and only established users even have that power.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  Which tricks?
saraid216 14y ago
> To address the actual point: I do not prescribe a specific moral framework, only that there be one. Everyone has a moral framework, whether or not it is examined the way Socrates would demand it to be. The issue is that you gave an example, which undermines your claim that you're not prescribing a moral framework: no example can successfully be free of every possible framework. You claim that "life is the ultimate aim of moral design", but this is completely untrue. Many moral systems encourage the wasting of time and the dismissal of life in its various forms. Many moral systems, indeed, are not about the contribution of work to society and humankind at all. As a matter of nuance, this can be argued. (Is afterlife a form of life? Is life in the city or in nature? Is your time wasted if you intentionally wasted it? Et. al.) In short, you actually are prescribing a specific moral framework. Yours. There's nothing wrong with this, except that you didn't even realize you were doing it. You've answered the relevant questions, at least implicitly, and so forgot that they were even questions to begin with. > I do stand by the idea presented there. You're not wrong, exactly. Take Richard Bartle, who has been pounding out a very similar message to the game community, though you'd have trouble recognizing it. His message is simple: know why you do things. Why do you have levels in your RPGs? MUD1 (his game) had them because they represented the possibility of social mobility to a pair of British country-born schoolkids annoyed by their circumstances. But most designers only have them because well... that's just expected. Their decision stands unexamined; often unrecognized to be a decision at all. He did not need to bring up morality, because it's not the point. The point is that, when you do things, it should be grounded in a solid self-aware understanding of what and why you act. Design intentionally. Think about the details. Care about consequences. Test everything, hold onto what is good.
- eevilspock 14y ago
  "though you'd have trouble recognizing it." "I actually bother with knowing what I'm talking about." "There's nothing wrong with this, except that you didn't even realize you were doing it. You've answered the relevant questions, at least implicitly, and so forgot that they were even questions to begin with." "Pop quiz. What are the four main types of ethical systems? Explain how "clapping with glee" figures into each one." Dude, do you realize how patronizing and pompous your replies are? . "> To address the actual point: I do not prescribe a specific moral framework, only that there be one. "Everyone has a moral framework, whether or not it is examined the way Socrates would demand it to be. The issue is that you gave an example, which undermines your claim that you're not prescribing a moral framework: no example can successfully be free of every possible framework." Please try an extricate yourself from yourself and make an attempt to actually listen to the other person (Ask your spouse/children whether you are a good listener. As a lousy listener myself I know a little about this.) rather than using them as an excuse to strut your (purely, in my opinion) academic training. The author specifically says that he does "not prescribe a specific moral framework, only that there be one." Having some moral framework in an example does not contradict this. You could nail him on a technicallity, that requiring a moral framework in itself stems from a (meta?)moral framework, but then I'd again point out how pompous you are. If morality is not the point, why "should [it] be grounded in a solid self-aware understanding of what and why you act"? Why "design intentionally"? Why "think about the details"? Why "care about consequences"? Why "hold onto what is good"? What is the measure of good? If you answer that Bartlett is talking about aesthetics not morality, then why the fuck did you bring him up? It would not be a "similar message" at all. See feedback about listening.

by fadeyev 14y ago

nomnomnom 14y ago

That blog post restored a good deal of my faith in smart people in the tech sector... it's looking kinda bleak lately, not a whole lot of actual thought or even reflection going on. Thanks, and all the best.

eevilspock 14y ago

I feel that much of the negative comments are a defensive reaction. Coming to Hacker News and pointing out, even if indirectly, that the tricks of the startup trade are of questionable morality is like showing up at an decadent dinner party and pulling out photos of starving third world children.

eevilspock 14y ago
Even more telling is that my statement above is getting downvotes, and only established users even have that power.
slurgfest 14y ago
Which tricks?

saraid216 14y ago

> To address the actual point: I do not prescribe a specific moral framework, only that there be one. Everyone has a moral framework, whether or not it is examined the way Socrates would demand it to be. The issue is that you gave an example, which undermines your claim that you're not prescribing a moral framework: no example can successfully be free of every possible framework. You claim that "life is the ultimate aim of moral design", but this is completely untrue. Many moral systems encourage the wasting of time and the dismissal of life in its various forms. Many moral systems, indeed, are not about the contribution of work to society and humankind at all. As a matter of nuance, this can be argued. (Is afterlife a form of life? Is life in the city or in nature? Is your time wasted if you intentionally wasted it? Et. al.) In short, you actually are prescribing a specific moral framework. Yours. There's nothing wrong with this, except that you didn't even realize you were doing it. You've answered the relevant questions, at least implicitly, and so forgot that they were even questions to begin with. > I do stand by the idea presented there. You're not wrong, exactly. Take Richard Bartle, who has been pounding out a very similar message to the game community, though you'd have trouble recognizing it. His message is simple: know why you do things. Why do you have levels in your RPGs? MUD1 (his game) had them because they represented the possibility of social mobility to a pair of British country-born schoolkids annoyed by their circumstances. But most designers only have them because well... that's just expected. Their decision stands unexamined; often unrecognized to be a decision at all. He did not need to bring up morality, because it's not the point. The point is that, when you do things, it should be grounded in a solid self-aware understanding of what and why you act. Design intentionally. Think about the details. Care about consequences. Test everything, hold onto what is good.

eevilspock 14y ago
"though you'd have trouble recognizing it." "I actually bother with knowing what I'm talking about." "There's nothing wrong with this, except that you didn't even realize you were doing it. You've answered the relevant questions, at least implicitly, and so forgot that they were even questions to begin with." "Pop quiz. What are the four main types of ethical systems? Explain how "clapping with glee" figures into each one." Dude, do you realize how patronizing and pompous your replies are? . "> To address the actual point: I do not prescribe a specific moral framework, only that there be one. "Everyone has a moral framework, whether or not it is examined the way Socrates would demand it to be. The issue is that you gave an example, which undermines your claim that you're not prescribing a moral framework: no example can successfully be free of every possible framework." Please try an extricate yourself from yourself and make an attempt to actually listen to the other person (Ask your spouse/children whether you are a good listener. As a lousy listener myself I know a little about this.) rather than using them as an excuse to strut your (purely, in my opinion) academic training. The author specifically says that he does "not prescribe a specific moral framework, only that there be one." Having some moral framework in an example does not contradict this. You could nail him on a technicallity, that requiring a moral framework in itself stems from a (meta?)moral framework, but then I'd again point out how pompous you are. If morality is not the point, why "should [it] be grounded in a solid self-aware understanding of what and why you act"? Why "design intentionally"? Why "think about the details"? Why "care about consequences"? Why "hold onto what is good"? What is the measure of good? If you answer that Bartlett is talking about aesthetics not morality, then why the fuck did you bring him up? It would not be a "similar message" at all. See feedback about listening.