3 ms·

Lets generalise a bit more here - every company at any time could completely heel-turn and do awful things. Even my favourite private companies (e.g. Valve) hav

Lets generalise a bit more here - every company at any time could completely heel-turn and do awful things. Even my favourite private companies (e.g. Valve) have done things that I would consider evil. However, I would think I'm not alone in that I'm generally wanting to do good while also wanting convenience, I know that really every bit of consumption I do is probably negative in some ways, and there is no real "apolitical" action anyone can take. But can't I at least get annoyed and take my money somewhere else for the short amount of time another company is doing it better? Yes, if openAI suddenly leaps forwards with codex and pounds anthropic into the dust, I'll likely switch back despite my moral grievances, but in a situation where I can get mildly motivated to jump over for something that - to me - seems like a better morality without much punishment to me, I'll do it.

bluGill 8mo ago
There are no universial morals. Anything - everything you think is evil some culture (possibly in history) thinks is good). I can't even think of something good that I'm confident everyone would agree is good. there are some people (companies are run by people) that are so bad I boycott them. Most bad I treat like society cannot work without accepting them anyway.
- codechicago277 8mo ago
  There’s no possibility or need for morality to be universal, and societies have improved their ethics many times throughout history. Your take is nihilistic and presupposes that moral progress isn’t possible, even though we’ve seen objective moral progress many times.
  - bluGill 7mo ago
    Morals / ethics change of course. However that is not objective progress, only subjuctive. You think it is objective because you agree with the new system. Slave owners of the past would call it a regression that they can't live their lifestyle. Of course I agree with the new standards (at least here) and so am glad they can't. edit: yes, nillistic - but sometimes you have to go there
    - codechicago277 7mo ago
      Just because it’s subjective doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. The slave holders were wrong, you and I are right. Less human sacrifice in the world is a good thing, and we shouldn’t require a perfect ethical framework before we act ethically, because some real things aren’t reducible to objective logic or perfectly consistent ontologies.

bluGill 8mo ago

There are no universial morals. Anything - everything you think is evil some culture (possibly in history) thinks is good). I can't even think of something good that I'm confident everyone would agree is good. there are some people (companies are run by people) that are so bad I boycott them. Most bad I treat like society cannot work without accepting them anyway.

codechicago277 8mo ago
There’s no possibility or need for morality to be universal, and societies have improved their ethics many times throughout history. Your take is nihilistic and presupposes that moral progress isn’t possible, even though we’ve seen objective moral progress many times.
- bluGill 7mo ago
  Morals / ethics change of course. However that is not objective progress, only subjuctive. You think it is objective because you agree with the new system. Slave owners of the past would call it a regression that they can't live their lifestyle. Of course I agree with the new standards (at least here) and so am glad they can't. edit: yes, nillistic - but sometimes you have to go there
  - codechicago277 7mo ago
    Just because it’s subjective doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. The slave holders were wrong, you and I are right. Less human sacrifice in the world is a good thing, and we shouldn’t require a perfect ethical framework before we act ethically, because some real things aren’t reducible to objective logic or perfectly consistent ontologies.