3 ms·

a theory of good and evil for the analytically inclined

1 points by idushan 13y ago

Metaethics.org is my shot at setting up a "theory of good and evil" that works for all you fellow hackers and analytically inclined people. What do you think?

kijin 13y ago
Sounds like an interesting combination of: - consequentialism (good and bad are judged by their consequences on the strength of structures) - emotivism & subjectivism (how relevant a structure "feels" to us) - a vaguely articulated position on the nature/nurture debate (feeling of relevancy towards structures is innate) - some preconceived yet undefended notions about what's physically/abstractly relevant (why would I give a damn about reproduction, or order and authority, if not for social indoctrination?), and - a healthy dose of Eastern philosophy/religion (inner peace, alignment, etc.). An "analytically inclined" reader will probably begin by asking: - Define "structure". - Define what "strenghthen" and "weaken" mean when it comes to structures. - Define "relevance", and tell me how to measure it. - What's the threshold for dropping "for X" and just calling something "good" or "bad" simpliciter? - If the feeling of relevancy and the mechanisms behind it are innate, what causes wild differences in people's opinions about right and wrong? - What does it mean for a structure to "support" or "encompass" another? - 7) sounds like a Chinese fortune teller's advice. - Is it possible to align yourself to one structure without harming any other structure? Seriously, no collateral damage? - Why is Kant's categorical imperative "self-delusional"? There are many bad things about analytic philosophy, but the preoccupation with precision is not one of them. Without precision, your statements could mean anything whatsoever, and many such interpretations will be self-contradictory. But what is philosophy if not a lifelong project of refining one's beliefs and exploring their implications? Fix the ambiguities, fix the vague statements, squash bugs a.k.a. contradictions, wash, rinse, repeat. Finally, points 3-9 would belong more in moral psychology than in metaethics. P.S. You own metaethics.com, .net, and .org? Wow. Some of the philosophical associations that are devoted to metaethical discussions could really use one of those domains. Honestly, I think it's a waste of three perfectly good domains to use them for a one-page manifesto.
- idushan 13y ago
  BTW: I converted the page to using Github pages. That way people can add their comments via issues as you do with OS software. :)
- elitza 13y ago
  Hi Kijin, thanks so much for taking the time to comment in such a thorough way. I have converted all your points into github issues with attribution to you, hope that's ok for you. Looking forward to more discussions with you as this approach to a community-driven OpenSource pragmatic ethical guide is becoming more and more refined.
- idushan 13y ago
  Thank you so much for this absolutely awesome reply. The thing is: I totally agree with what you say, also definitely on what should be done next, e.g. defining structure. I dont' believe in "the battle of armchairs". I would rather do philosophy in the same way we develop software: iteratively, MVP, POC…. That's why I put up a couple of ideas as an experiment. And your answer already proves that in a small way I was right! Thank you. – I will do as you advised and develop these thoughts in a iterative way. Regarding the domains: I personally think that Metaethics is among the most important intellectual subjects of the future. If you understand why and under what condition people consider stuff good or evil, you can predict how people behave in minor and major scale, what makes them go to war or buy products. Metaethics is too important to leave it to philosophers who mostly are clueless about math, software or the scientific method. And that is why I a) reach out to hackers, and b) have reserved the domains. Again, thank you. Your answer alone has made this little experiment a success. :-)
lifeguard 13y ago
This did not resonate with me. Almost reminded me of Ayn Rand. I believe one should do good because it is the correct thing to do, not for any benefit to oneself or community. "No good deed goes unpunished" is a truism for me. To go deeper, this: http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2011/230/1/9/the_three_vinegar_tasters_by_rndmtask-d472lpq.jpg http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2011/230/1/9/the_three...
- idushan 13y ago
  That's okay. Beautiful drawing. :-) BTW: what do you mean by "should"?

1 points by idushan 13y ago

Metaethics.org is my shot at setting up a "theory of good and evil" that works for all you fellow hackers and analytically inclined people. What do you think?

kijin 13y ago

Sounds like an interesting combination of: - consequentialism (good and bad are judged by their consequences on the strength of structures) - emotivism & subjectivism (how relevant a structure "feels" to us) - a vaguely articulated position on the nature/nurture debate (feeling of relevancy towards structures is innate) - some preconceived yet undefended notions about what's physically/abstractly relevant (why would I give a damn about reproduction, or order and authority, if not for social indoctrination?), and - a healthy dose of Eastern philosophy/religion (inner peace, alignment, etc.). An "analytically inclined" reader will probably begin by asking: - Define "structure". - Define what "strenghthen" and "weaken" mean when it comes to structures. - Define "relevance", and tell me how to measure it. - What's the threshold for dropping "for X" and just calling something "good" or "bad" simpliciter? - If the feeling of relevancy and the mechanisms behind it are innate, what causes wild differences in people's opinions about right and wrong? - What does it mean for a structure to "support" or "encompass" another? - 7) sounds like a Chinese fortune teller's advice. - Is it possible to align yourself to one structure without harming any other structure? Seriously, no collateral damage? - Why is Kant's categorical imperative "self-delusional"? There are many bad things about analytic philosophy, but the preoccupation with precision is not one of them. Without precision, your statements could mean anything whatsoever, and many such interpretations will be self-contradictory. But what is philosophy if not a lifelong project of refining one's beliefs and exploring their implications? Fix the ambiguities, fix the vague statements, squash bugs a.k.a. contradictions, wash, rinse, repeat. Finally, points 3-9 would belong more in moral psychology than in metaethics. P.S. You own metaethics.com, .net, and .org? Wow. Some of the philosophical associations that are devoted to metaethical discussions could really use one of those domains. Honestly, I think it's a waste of three perfectly good domains to use them for a one-page manifesto.

idushan 13y ago
BTW: I converted the page to using Github pages. That way people can add their comments via issues as you do with OS software. :)
elitza 13y ago
Hi Kijin, thanks so much for taking the time to comment in such a thorough way. I have converted all your points into github issues with attribution to you, hope that's ok for you. Looking forward to more discussions with you as this approach to a community-driven OpenSource pragmatic ethical guide is becoming more and more refined.
idushan 13y ago
Thank you so much for this absolutely awesome reply. The thing is: I totally agree with what you say, also definitely on what should be done next, e.g. defining structure. I dont' believe in "the battle of armchairs". I would rather do philosophy in the same way we develop software: iteratively, MVP, POC…. That's why I put up a couple of ideas as an experiment. And your answer already proves that in a small way I was right! Thank you. – I will do as you advised and develop these thoughts in a iterative way. Regarding the domains: I personally think that Metaethics is among the most important intellectual subjects of the future. If you understand why and under what condition people consider stuff good or evil, you can predict how people behave in minor and major scale, what makes them go to war or buy products. Metaethics is too important to leave it to philosophers who mostly are clueless about math, software or the scientific method. And that is why I a) reach out to hackers, and b) have reserved the domains. Again, thank you. Your answer alone has made this little experiment a success. :-)

lifeguard 13y ago

This did not resonate with me. Almost reminded me of Ayn Rand. I believe one should do good because it is the correct thing to do, not for any benefit to oneself or community. "No good deed goes unpunished" is a truism for me. To go deeper, this: http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2011/230/1/9/the_three_vinegar_tasters_by_rndmtask-d472lpq.jpg http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2011/230/1/9/the_three...

idushan 13y ago
That's okay. Beautiful drawing. :-) BTW: what do you mean by "should"?