|
I am a good boy
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 23:28 |
|
rudatron posted:can 'goodness' be distinguished from sufficiently advanced rational self-interest (so long as people fear death), is it actually ethical to constrain choice through agreement, and can a promise made without consequences have any value or substance to it? e: After re-reading the questions GlyphGryph posed for the original hypothetical, I'm in agreement that it'd be good to have a dialogue. Ignatius M. Meen has issued a correction as of 20:47 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
rudatron posted:can 'goodness' be distinguished from sufficiently advanced rational self-interest (so long as people fear death), is it actually ethical to constrain choice through agreement, and can a promise made without consequences have any value or substance to it? I'm not really sure why "constraining choice" is morally noteworthy. Most of the time, constraining ourselves is such a non-event that we don't notice that we're doing it. My car only has a quarter tank of gas. To drive any distance, I'd have to stop and refuel. So, I've constrained future me's ability to drive quickly. I've set up automatic withholding on my taxes. That constrains future me's ability to refuse to give money to a future government. These kinds of pre-commitment mechanisms seem super-mundane. Are you against them generally? Or is there some specific case that makes them evil?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
rudatron posted:can 'goodness' be distinguished from sufficiently advanced rational self-interest (so long as people fear death), Why is it important that the two concepts be distinguished between?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
rudatron posted:can 'goodness' be distinguished from sufficiently advanced rational self-interest (so long as people fear death), is it actually ethical to constrain choice through agreement, and can a promise made without consequences have any value or substance to it? Edit: Actual well thought and reasoned response has been removed, because I remember I'm still waiting on your response from. rudatron posted:i read your response, i'm still thinking about it, that is going to take some time - in the mean time, i would appreciate some answers on these questions. i will provide my response to you, at a later point, but not right now. I encourage everyone else to edit out their answers as well GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 19:27 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why is it important that the two concepts be distinguished between? They seem totally different, but probably not in the way that rudatron is hoping. The "rational" in "rational self-interest" is economist speak for "how effective are you at achieving your goals". It has nothing to do with what those goals are. Ghandi and Hitler could both have been rational. They just wanted vastly different things. "Goodness" is about the content of goals. When you want stuff that doesn't effect me, ("You want to buy yourself a Tesla") I'll call that goal "neutral". When our goals are shared, especially when they relate to the well-being of third parties ("We both want people in our society to be well-fed") I'll call the goal "good". The 'debate' around rational self-interest seems to mostly come from people not realizing that "I want to help others!" is a perfectly legitimate goal. And in as far as people are doing that, of course they're being good. In as far as they're being effective, then they're being 'rational'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
rudatron posted:can 'goodness' be distinguished from sufficiently advanced rational self-interest (so long as people fear death) How does this hypothetical address this question? The most you can say is that under certain circumstances they cannot necessarily be distinguished, i.e., that there is no exclusivity condition between them. But why would there be? rudatron posted:is it actually ethical to constrain choice through agreement See, as with the previous question, I have no idea how this stuff popped into your head and don't know what you're getting at, because the argument made in the OP was basically nonexistent. Why would it be unethical? If saving two lives is unanimously agreed to be the "best" outcome (for whatever value of "best" the subjects are using, maybe utility maximization?), then making the choice to guarantee that result through removal of future choice is at least plausibly ethical. If you think otherwise and want to have a discussion about it, we need something more substantive to go on than the dumb guy's non-argument in the OP. rudatron posted:the answer of the thread was unanimously: aliens bad This is a much better question. Are they bad? Is there an ethical imperative against killing sapient beings that can be generalized throughout the whole of the universe? (Certainly the aliens are bad for us, subjectively, in the same sense that wolves are bad for lambs, but beyond that...)
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:This is a much better question. Are they bad? Is there an ethical imperative against killing sapient beings that can be generalized throughout the whole of the universe? (Certainly the aliens are bad for us, subjectively, in the same sense that wolves are bad for lambs, but beyond that...) Yeah I think the real problem is that he keeps wanting to frame this is a really boring and sort of nonsensical ethical question but he keeps designing far more interesting ones, accidentally. The question of whether or not the aliens are bad and how we should ethically respond to their badness and deal with oppressors forcing us into morally problematic situations is way, way more interesting, way more illuminating, and way more fun to talk about than the stuff he cares about. And he doesn't understand enough about ethics or how people thinks to even get why.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Throughout all of human history there have been folks having to deal with terrible Sophie's choices, sometimes because their captor was a "scientist", sometimes because their captor was a sadistic gently caress, sometimes both Point is op should go gently caress himself
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 21:50
|
|
