You are claiming the inherent bias of identity (ontology?), is involuntary. I’m not disagreeing, but pointing it out because it seems unavoidable. In service to being “Less Wrong” I suppose we’d all like to have such identity based bias highlighted for us in such a way which was not a cause of conflict and defensiveness. I visualise this a sort of communicative code, in which I pretend to be a robot, and try to avoid habits of subcultural expression.
Instead of saying “tankie” or “Stalinist” I should say “centralised authoritarian left”. Is that adequate?
Is it better to use terms like “individual profit motive”, or “private ownership rights”, as opposed to “capitalist ideology”?
Is that what you are concerned about?
Labels, particularly political labels, are useful as a linguistic tool of thought, but also neatly disposed of by someone else’s preconceptions. It’s better to speak in concepts rather than labels, because labels mean different things to different people, and entire conversations can occur, where each participant thinks the others understand the same thing by a term, but don’t, leading to… horror.
I ask a lot of questions, apparently, at first.
Thanks for your assistance.
I’m not disagreeing, but pointing it out because it seems unavoidable.
BBC managed to do the show “Yes, Minister” with contains plenty of political content without saying which ideology the minister happens to have and which party he belongs to.
Quite a lot of what political ideology is about isn’t actual politics but the spectator sport of politics.
“Yes Minister” showed us all that the notion of an ideologue in politics is a fallacy.
Whatever values a person has, those values are constantly compromised and neutered, because the way politics “really” works, is more about compromise based on career goals, not some sort of ideological purity.
Self interest kills idealistic goals.
Bureaucracy and the status quo render idealism untenable.
So, relying on politicians to create significant socioeconomic change in society, and the world, must rely on a person doing an impossible job. There is no point electing a different person to do the same job, if the job is actually impossible.
Economic power is political power.
Wealth equates to political power.
Democracy and Capitalism are incompatible concepts.
The Princeton study didn’t say that the rich have all the power. Both the rich and the poor want performance-based pay for teachers but it doesn’t happen because the teacher’s unions and various unelected bureaucrats in the educational system don’t want it.
Both the Kochs and Soros want to end the war on drugs but the DEA is politically powerful enough that it doesn’t simply get shut off.
Short version:
The lower 90% of citizens on the socioeconomic scale, have absolutely no influence over the actual policies which are enacted by the US government. No matter which party is in power, for the last 40+ years.
Instead of saying “tankie” or “Stalinist” I should say “centralised authoritarian left”. Is that adequate?
I wouldn’t recommend it. Language should be clear and to the point—the purpose of an expression is to communicate meaning and given that the recipient understands the word, “tankie” would usually be a better term to use. People with severe identity-based bias problems should deal with them and not force everyone else to tiptoe around.
Besides, precision matters. “Individual profit motive” is not the same as “private ownership rights” which is not the same as “capitalist ideology”.
It’s better to speak in concepts rather than labels
True, but you are forced to use words in any case and unnecessarily roundabout expressions do not help.
Just explicitly define the terms you use and don’t worry too much whether to put a “label” sticker on these terms, or the “concept” sticker :-)
The “or” clauses in my question define sub-categories of the concept.
Both ownership and profit motive are inherent to capitalist ideology, but neither define the whole.
Hmmm. If there is no human left to ask questions, moral philosophy becomes extinct, and all questions are moot. In order to continue questioning, there must still be humans alive. Ergo: the basis of all moral philosophy must be constrained by, and its quality measured by, the resulting probability of the continuation of humanity (including whatever evolutionary processes ensue).
If any ideology places the survival of the human species at risk, it is fundamentally unacceptable, and ought to be rejected.
Any ideology which accepts “mutually assured destruction” as a reasonable geopolitical tool, is inherently irrational, meaning, rationally deficient, or, genuinely insane. These ideologies ought to be opposed by any means necessary, excepting those means which endanger human continuation. The continuation of a system of hierarchy and privilege for existing rulers, ought never supersede the necessity of continuation of the species (and of course humans need many other species, to continue).
I would like to make a case for the necessity of revolt when I have time and energy appropriate to the task.
Ergo: the basis of all moral philosophy must be constrained by, and its quality measured by, the resulting probability of the continuation of humanity
Not ergo. Preventing moral philosophy from becoming extinct is not the absolute good dominating all others.
If any ideology places the survival of the human species at risk
Future is uncertain, the risk always exists. Ideologies typically make trade-offs (different for different ideologies, of course) between competing goals.
Any ideology which accepts “mutually assured destruction” as a reasonable geopolitical tool, is inherently irrational
What other option (in the context of, say, 1950s) would you propose and how would you implement/enforce it?
I would like to make a case for the necessity of revolt when I have time and energy appropriate to the task.
All questioning; one reasonable definition of human progress and value,
…would end if humans end. The process is what we are, more than anything else. We ask, we find answers, we evolve, we continue (hopefully) with better information than before. We make better decisions, and forge better priorities.
Some people I know are unperturbed by the idea of human extinction, as if the result would be “deserved” because “we” failed to survive.
I have a problem with that, relating to the notion that few humans decide the fate of many. A few of us have massive influence over culture, beliefs, and the actions of the many, and so only a few of us can decide to extinguish all of us. The “blame” for disaster, is not shared equally. It is disproportionately allocated to those with socio-economic power.
Most of us are not blame for the perspectives we have been taught to accept. Most of us are victims of ideological premises which are held involuntarily. One example, is nationalism. Why is one country one never chose to be born into, better than another, who’s populace never chose to be born there? We are one species, and we need to continue, to keep asking questions, and thereby fix our mistakes.
The first goal of any moral human is to reduce the likelihood of human extinction.
I hope that clears up the issue.
I would rather obey some different ideological socio-economic-political construct/model, than accept all of humanity ought to die to avoid such a scenario. After all we are speaking of a very few humans in positions of power, making these decisions for everyone, and they seem biased towards maintaining their own privilege as if it is objectively necessary. It is not. Involuntary bias is inherent to hierarchy. It is a product of social apartheid. The alternative would be inclusion of “leadership” within the same social circumstances as the many. ie: inclusion in the communities they rule, rather than separation. Social norms in a given sub-culture, like that of the so called “elite”, change circumstantially. The resulting values and attitudes are divergent from what the majority would consider appropriate.
I would propose that the inherent problem with hierarchy, is isolation from the macrocultural values of a population, which leads to a psychosocial bias including derision of those lower on the hierarchy than the rulers, and so the rulers become disconnected from collective rationality. Disconnected via involuntary bias.
This means the ruling “class” make decisions which suit themselves, rather than decisions which are of objective benefit to the continuation of the species.
You have made me feel bad with your “LOL”, and I’m unsure if you have said this to make me feel poorly, or to make yourself feel better.
Perhaps some of each?
The first goal of any moral human is to reduce the likelihood of human extinction. I hope that clears up the issue.
I don’t see it as self-evident.
If you assert that reducing the likelihood of human extinction overrides all and any other goals, you become vulnerable to what’s locally known as Pascal’s Mugging (basically, for an extremely high-value event you are forced to react to extremely low probabilities of it happening).
I would rather obey some different ideological socio-economic-political construct/model, than accept all of humanity ought to die to avoid such a scenario.
Is that a choice someone is offering you? By the way, how do you think such scenarios work in game theory?
You have made me feel bad with your “LOL”, and I’m unsure if you have said this to make me feel poorly, or to make yourself feel better.
It was a chuckle. Laughter is good. Don’t take everything as social jousting.
Addition
If Gandhi was to be given the choice to reduce his empathy slightly, in exchange for a reward, and he did so, every new exchange like that is more likely to be agreed to. This idea was mentioned on this site somewhere.
It is the same with cultural indoctrination into hierarchical social structures. The more we become used to concentrated power, the less we are able to notice and assess other options. Cultural norms inform and restrain rational thought. Bias is involuntary. Now we see existential threat from the “normal” operation of our structure, we have trouble doing anything about it, because all alternatives have been caused to be widely believed to be wrong. Breaking out of that cognitive trap involves assessing some uncomfortable ideas...
-If it is likely that continuing this socioeconomic structure makes human extinction probable, this century, what actions are acceptable as “resistance”?
Utilitarianism would indicate that massive casualties in pursuit of revolutionary change are preferable to total casualties from inaction. Both positions are only hypotheses. Empiricism splits each as more, or less probable. Extinction does seem increasingly likely as our system unfolds over time, so hardship from revolt in increasingly; the rational option.
...not that this fictional revolt is likely to occur, just pointing out it may well be entirely moral to wage violent revolt in pursuit of a new and more rational system conducive to continuing human survival. Just a thought experiment. Perhaps well-used guillotines in town squares are preferable to apathetic acquiescence to existing power systems.
I don’t know. I hate the idea.
It is worth pointing out the moral efficacy of such an idea now that democracy has been absolutely neutered.
re: Pascal’s Mugging.
There are thresholds. Would a guy hand over his wallet if he was about to die from starvation, and the wallet contained his only means to prevent this? A quadrillion doesn’t matter if he is not alive to see it.
The difference is that the best information we have, indicates that no available “officially sanctioned” structural change is better than radical change, if the goal is the survival of the human species. Inequality (capitalism) killed democracy, because wealth is power. WE cannot vote using a democracy we do not have to get democracy back. We cannot vote to prevent an oligarchic class continuing to promote consumption and the poisoning of our world. Strong cultural bias, plus power, is genocidally dangerous. What ought people who see the systemic, structural, existential threat do, if all legal avenues for change are shut off?
re: game theory choice.
Yes. We are all in a situation where we must decide if one socio-economic paradigm is worth fighting for over another. Historically wars are fought by the poor, for, the rich. The dominant preserve their hierarchical privilege through various means of convincing the subjugated that it is they who are under threat.
This would not matter nearly so much if we did not have evidence that our species’ projected timeline is shrinking. There is a large body of evidence that humanity may wipe ourselves out in several different ways before the end of this century. This circumstance is systemically unacceptable. If we could all continue indefinitely, being brutal and torturous, over consuming, wasting, propagandising the lessers, and toxifying this blue marble… that would be less bad, than doing so knowing the likely result is near term extinction.
We know there is an existential threat from inaction. This means inaction is morally deficient.
There are high odds that the economic incentives and stratification (including sub-cultural influences on values—Lord Acton’s letters from 1880s: “Power corrupts” etc), will override the ability of the powerful to rationally guide humanity out of the trap we have built for ourselves.
The wealthy are now sociologically obsolete, and the ideologies they use to rationalise their positions, are also the ones which prevent conservation and environmental preservation, peace, egalitarianism, positive health outcomes, and rational planning for our collective future. Self interest often opposes any notion of global planning to shield against shared threats.
Sorry for the ramble. I’m doing my best, and hopefully learning to do better.
Why are there thresholds (=discontinuities) and where do they come from?
What ought people who see the systemic, structural, existential threat do, if all legal avenues for change are shut off?
So tell us.
Historically wars are fought by the poor, for, the rich.
Not true. Ancient times’ wars were fought for survival. The side which lost decisively was often just erased. The males were killed, the women were taken and sold off, the settlements were razed. See Carthage, for example.
Medieval times’ wars were fought for power and wealth—the poor (that is, the peasants) were often the victims, but if their side lost, little changed in their lives. They continued to be serfs, just to another lord, and it didn’t matter that much.
There is a large body of evidence that humanity may wipe ourselves out in several different ways before the end of this century.
Would you like to estimate the probabilities for these different ways?
We know there is an existential threat from inaction. This means inaction is morally deficient.
Equivalent: We know there is an existential threat from action. This means action is morally deficient.
The wealthy are now sociologically obsolete
What does that mean?
There are societies without wealthy people. They… don’t do well. Notable examples are Soviet Russia and Communist China.
re: self evident.
If no one is left alive to question, then there are no more questions from us. Tree-falling in the woods. Does it fall is no-one notices? Yes. Do we care? On what foundation do we judge this new lack of tree?
We “know” so little, or at least know our knowledge is imperfect, so we also know that we would form more coherent/accurate/cogent value judgements if we had more information which was accurate. Our present judgements on moral value are likely to change with a greater understanding of reality.
If, right now, we don’t value human existence as much as we ought to, we can only discover how correct that judgement is, with more data/information.
We don’t know what we are wrong about, and what we are wrong about informs our value judgement.
If a person is a misanthropist, the pursuit of accurate knowledge is the pursuit of proving one’s own bias irrational.
That process is valuable. In order to validate the “choices” we make now, someone needs to be able to learn from them, and validate them, or not. Continued human existence, is a core of moral philosophy. Morality cannot exist in a void. Morality exists because we do.
Questioning is intrinsically definitive of human value, because without it, our existence is without experience. The difference between experience and reality, is the unknown.
If no one is left alive to question, then there are no more questions from us.
So what?
If, right now, we don’t value human existence as much as we ought to, we can only discover how correct that judgement is, with more data/information.
Equivalent: If, right now, we value human existence more than we ought to, we can only discover how correct that judgement is, with more data/information.
As you yourself point out, “we don’t know what we are wrong about”.
Morality exists because we do.
Sure, but again, so what? You treat the existence of morality (or of “questioning”) as an absolute good, but offer no reasons why this should be so.
You are claiming the inherent bias of identity (ontology?), is involuntary. I’m not disagreeing, but pointing it out because it seems unavoidable. In service to being “Less Wrong” I suppose we’d all like to have such identity based bias highlighted for us in such a way which was not a cause of conflict and defensiveness. I visualise this a sort of communicative code, in which I pretend to be a robot, and try to avoid habits of subcultural expression.
Instead of saying “tankie” or “Stalinist” I should say “centralised authoritarian left”. Is that adequate?
Is it better to use terms like “individual profit motive”, or “private ownership rights”, as opposed to “capitalist ideology”?
Is that what you are concerned about? Labels, particularly political labels, are useful as a linguistic tool of thought, but also neatly disposed of by someone else’s preconceptions. It’s better to speak in concepts rather than labels, because labels mean different things to different people, and entire conversations can occur, where each participant thinks the others understand the same thing by a term, but don’t, leading to… horror.
I ask a lot of questions, apparently, at first. Thanks for your assistance.
BBC managed to do the show “Yes, Minister” with contains plenty of political content without saying which ideology the minister happens to have and which party he belongs to.
Quite a lot of what political ideology is about isn’t actual politics but the spectator sport of politics.
“Yes Minister” showed us all that the notion of an ideologue in politics is a fallacy. Whatever values a person has, those values are constantly compromised and neutered, because the way politics “really” works, is more about compromise based on career goals, not some sort of ideological purity.
Self interest kills idealistic goals.
Bureaucracy and the status quo render idealism untenable.
So, relying on politicians to create significant socioeconomic change in society, and the world, must rely on a person doing an impossible job. There is no point electing a different person to do the same job, if the job is actually impossible.
Economic power is political power. Wealth equates to political power. Democracy and Capitalism are incompatible concepts.
Princeton proved this in 2014. There is no democracy in the US, and there is no particular reason to think any other Western country is particularly different. For your consideration: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
The Princeton study didn’t say that the rich have all the power. Both the rich and the poor want performance-based pay for teachers but it doesn’t happen because the teacher’s unions and various unelected bureaucrats in the educational system don’t want it.
Both the Kochs and Soros want to end the war on drugs but the DEA is politically powerful enough that it doesn’t simply get shut off.
No democracy, really? Or would it be more accurate to say that US democracy falls short of some sort theoretical ideal?
So can you cut to the chase and tell us your solution to all this?
Short version: The lower 90% of citizens on the socioeconomic scale, have absolutely no influence over the actual policies which are enacted by the US government. No matter which party is in power, for the last 40+ years.
So, Democracy does not exist. It isn’t real. It is fake. It is a culturally accepted reality, but not an objective reality.
I wouldn’t recommend it. Language should be clear and to the point—the purpose of an expression is to communicate meaning and given that the recipient understands the word, “tankie” would usually be a better term to use. People with severe identity-based bias problems should deal with them and not force everyone else to tiptoe around.
Besides, precision matters. “Individual profit motive” is not the same as “private ownership rights” which is not the same as “capitalist ideology”.
True, but you are forced to use words in any case and unnecessarily roundabout expressions do not help.
Just explicitly define the terms you use and don’t worry too much whether to put a “label” sticker on these terms, or the “concept” sticker :-)
The “or” clauses in my question define sub-categories of the concept. Both ownership and profit motive are inherent to capitalist ideology, but neither define the whole.
Hmmm. If there is no human left to ask questions, moral philosophy becomes extinct, and all questions are moot. In order to continue questioning, there must still be humans alive. Ergo: the basis of all moral philosophy must be constrained by, and its quality measured by, the resulting probability of the continuation of humanity (including whatever evolutionary processes ensue). If any ideology places the survival of the human species at risk, it is fundamentally unacceptable, and ought to be rejected.
Any ideology which accepts “mutually assured destruction” as a reasonable geopolitical tool, is inherently irrational, meaning, rationally deficient, or, genuinely insane. These ideologies ought to be opposed by any means necessary, excepting those means which endanger human continuation. The continuation of a system of hierarchy and privilege for existing rulers, ought never supersede the necessity of continuation of the species (and of course humans need many other species, to continue).
I would like to make a case for the necessity of revolt when I have time and energy appropriate to the task.
Thanks.
Not ergo. Preventing moral philosophy from becoming extinct is not the absolute good dominating all others.
Future is uncertain, the risk always exists. Ideologies typically make trade-offs (different for different ideologies, of course) between competing goals.
What other option (in the context of, say, 1950s) would you propose and how would you implement/enforce it?
LOL.
To quote from an old flash cartoon
-- Fire ze missiles!
-- But I am le tired
-- Fine, take a nap AND THEN FIRE ZE MISSILES!
All questioning; one reasonable definition of human progress and value, …would end if humans end. The process is what we are, more than anything else. We ask, we find answers, we evolve, we continue (hopefully) with better information than before. We make better decisions, and forge better priorities.
Some people I know are unperturbed by the idea of human extinction, as if the result would be “deserved” because “we” failed to survive.
I have a problem with that, relating to the notion that few humans decide the fate of many. A few of us have massive influence over culture, beliefs, and the actions of the many, and so only a few of us can decide to extinguish all of us. The “blame” for disaster, is not shared equally. It is disproportionately allocated to those with socio-economic power.
Most of us are not blame for the perspectives we have been taught to accept. Most of us are victims of ideological premises which are held involuntarily. One example, is nationalism. Why is one country one never chose to be born into, better than another, who’s populace never chose to be born there? We are one species, and we need to continue, to keep asking questions, and thereby fix our mistakes.
The first goal of any moral human is to reduce the likelihood of human extinction. I hope that clears up the issue.
I would rather obey some different ideological socio-economic-political construct/model, than accept all of humanity ought to die to avoid such a scenario. After all we are speaking of a very few humans in positions of power, making these decisions for everyone, and they seem biased towards maintaining their own privilege as if it is objectively necessary. It is not. Involuntary bias is inherent to hierarchy. It is a product of social apartheid. The alternative would be inclusion of “leadership” within the same social circumstances as the many. ie: inclusion in the communities they rule, rather than separation. Social norms in a given sub-culture, like that of the so called “elite”, change circumstantially. The resulting values and attitudes are divergent from what the majority would consider appropriate.
I would propose that the inherent problem with hierarchy, is isolation from the macrocultural values of a population, which leads to a psychosocial bias including derision of those lower on the hierarchy than the rulers, and so the rulers become disconnected from collective rationality. Disconnected via involuntary bias.
This means the ruling “class” make decisions which suit themselves, rather than decisions which are of objective benefit to the continuation of the species.
You have made me feel bad with your “LOL”, and I’m unsure if you have said this to make me feel poorly, or to make yourself feel better. Perhaps some of each?
I don’t see it as self-evident.
If you assert that reducing the likelihood of human extinction overrides all and any other goals, you become vulnerable to what’s locally known as Pascal’s Mugging (basically, for an extremely high-value event you are forced to react to extremely low probabilities of it happening).
Is that a choice someone is offering you? By the way, how do you think such scenarios work in game theory?
It was a chuckle. Laughter is good. Don’t take everything as social jousting.
Addition If Gandhi was to be given the choice to reduce his empathy slightly, in exchange for a reward, and he did so, every new exchange like that is more likely to be agreed to. This idea was mentioned on this site somewhere.
It is the same with cultural indoctrination into hierarchical social structures. The more we become used to concentrated power, the less we are able to notice and assess other options. Cultural norms inform and restrain rational thought. Bias is involuntary. Now we see existential threat from the “normal” operation of our structure, we have trouble doing anything about it, because all alternatives have been caused to be widely believed to be wrong. Breaking out of that cognitive trap involves assessing some uncomfortable ideas...
-If it is likely that continuing this socioeconomic structure makes human extinction probable, this century, what actions are acceptable as “resistance”?
Utilitarianism would indicate that massive casualties in pursuit of revolutionary change are preferable to total casualties from inaction. Both positions are only hypotheses. Empiricism splits each as more, or less probable. Extinction does seem increasingly likely as our system unfolds over time, so hardship from revolt in increasingly; the rational option.
...not that this fictional revolt is likely to occur, just pointing out it may well be entirely moral to wage violent revolt in pursuit of a new and more rational system conducive to continuing human survival. Just a thought experiment. Perhaps well-used guillotines in town squares are preferable to apathetic acquiescence to existing power systems. I don’t know. I hate the idea. It is worth pointing out the moral efficacy of such an idea now that democracy has been absolutely neutered.
You’re tiptoeing all around this without explicitly saying anything definite. So what do you want your revolution to do, uncomfortably?
Why do you expect that a revolt will save humanity from extinction? To quote you yourself once again, “we don’t know what we are wrong about”.
That’s a popular position. But, historically speaking, the outcomes of taking it are not great.
re: Pascal’s Mugging. There are thresholds. Would a guy hand over his wallet if he was about to die from starvation, and the wallet contained his only means to prevent this? A quadrillion doesn’t matter if he is not alive to see it.
The difference is that the best information we have, indicates that no available “officially sanctioned” structural change is better than radical change, if the goal is the survival of the human species. Inequality (capitalism) killed democracy, because wealth is power. WE cannot vote using a democracy we do not have to get democracy back. We cannot vote to prevent an oligarchic class continuing to promote consumption and the poisoning of our world. Strong cultural bias, plus power, is genocidally dangerous. What ought people who see the systemic, structural, existential threat do, if all legal avenues for change are shut off?
re: game theory choice. Yes. We are all in a situation where we must decide if one socio-economic paradigm is worth fighting for over another. Historically wars are fought by the poor, for, the rich. The dominant preserve their hierarchical privilege through various means of convincing the subjugated that it is they who are under threat.
This would not matter nearly so much if we did not have evidence that our species’ projected timeline is shrinking. There is a large body of evidence that humanity may wipe ourselves out in several different ways before the end of this century. This circumstance is systemically unacceptable. If we could all continue indefinitely, being brutal and torturous, over consuming, wasting, propagandising the lessers, and toxifying this blue marble… that would be less bad, than doing so knowing the likely result is near term extinction.
We know there is an existential threat from inaction. This means inaction is morally deficient.
There are high odds that the economic incentives and stratification (including sub-cultural influences on values—Lord Acton’s letters from 1880s: “Power corrupts” etc), will override the ability of the powerful to rationally guide humanity out of the trap we have built for ourselves.
The wealthy are now sociologically obsolete, and the ideologies they use to rationalise their positions, are also the ones which prevent conservation and environmental preservation, peace, egalitarianism, positive health outcomes, and rational planning for our collective future. Self interest often opposes any notion of global planning to shield against shared threats.
Sorry for the ramble. I’m doing my best, and hopefully learning to do better.
Why are there thresholds (=discontinuities) and where do they come from?
So tell us.
Not true. Ancient times’ wars were fought for survival. The side which lost decisively was often just erased. The males were killed, the women were taken and sold off, the settlements were razed. See Carthage, for example.
Medieval times’ wars were fought for power and wealth—the poor (that is, the peasants) were often the victims, but if their side lost, little changed in their lives. They continued to be serfs, just to another lord, and it didn’t matter that much.
Would you like to estimate the probabilities for these different ways?
Equivalent: We know there is an existential threat from action. This means action is morally deficient.
What does that mean?
There are societies without wealthy people. They… don’t do well. Notable examples are Soviet Russia and Communist China.
re: self evident. If no one is left alive to question, then there are no more questions from us. Tree-falling in the woods. Does it fall is no-one notices? Yes. Do we care? On what foundation do we judge this new lack of tree?
We “know” so little, or at least know our knowledge is imperfect, so we also know that we would form more coherent/accurate/cogent value judgements if we had more information which was accurate. Our present judgements on moral value are likely to change with a greater understanding of reality.
If, right now, we don’t value human existence as much as we ought to, we can only discover how correct that judgement is, with more data/information.
We don’t know what we are wrong about, and what we are wrong about informs our value judgement.
If a person is a misanthropist, the pursuit of accurate knowledge is the pursuit of proving one’s own bias irrational.
That process is valuable. In order to validate the “choices” we make now, someone needs to be able to learn from them, and validate them, or not. Continued human existence, is a core of moral philosophy. Morality cannot exist in a void. Morality exists because we do.
Questioning is intrinsically definitive of human value, because without it, our existence is without experience. The difference between experience and reality, is the unknown.
So what?
Equivalent: If, right now, we value human existence more than we ought to, we can only discover how correct that judgement is, with more data/information.
As you yourself point out, “we don’t know what we are wrong about”.
Sure, but again, so what? You treat the existence of morality (or of “questioning”) as an absolute good, but offer no reasons why this should be so.