Again ArisKatsaris—the “correct-line-ometer” prevents me from responding directly to your comment (way to stifle the ability to respond, site-designers!). So I’ma put it here...
In short your description of what morality entails isn’t sufficient, isn’t complete
It was a comment—not a thesis, not a manifesto, not a monograph, and certainly not a “description of what morality entails”.
To assert otherwise is to be dishonest, or to be sufficiently stupid as to expect a commenter’s entire view on an important aspect of moral philosophy to be able to be transmitted in (roughly) 21 words (the bold bit at the end). Or to be a bit of both, I guess—if you expect that it will advance your ends, maybe that suffices.
Here’s something to print out and sticky-tape to your monitor: if ever I decide to give a complete, sufficient explanation of what I think is a “description of what morality entails”, it will be identified as such, will be significantly longer than 21 words, and will not have anything to do with programming an AI (on which: as a first step, and having only thought about this once since 1995, it seems to me that it would make sense to build in the concept of utility-interdependence, the notion of economic efficiency, and an understanding of what happens to tyrants in repeated, many-player dynamic games.)
Downvoted, as I will be downvoting every comment of yours that whines about downvotes from now on. Your downvotes have nothing to do with your positions, which are pretty common in their actual content around these parts, and everything to do with your horrid manner and utter incapacity of forming sentences that actually communicate meanings.
It was a comment
And as such it was judged and found wanting.
and certainly not a “description of what morality entails”.
Then it shouldn’t have started with the words “morality is about...”
To assert otherwise is to be dishonest, or to be sufficiently stupid as to expect a commenter’s entire view on an important aspect of moral philosophy to be able to be transmitted in (roughly) 21 words
It’s you who put it in bold letters. Perhaps you should start not emphasizing sentences which aren’t important ones.
It’s you who put it in bold letters. Perhaps you should start not emphasizing sentences which aren’t important ones.
A sentence can be important without being the complete rendition of one’s views on a topic: you’re being dishonest (again).
Seriously, if you spent as much mental effort on bringing yourself up to speed with core concepts as you do on misdirection and trying to be everyone’s schoolmarm, the community (for which you obviously purport to speak) would be better off.
I note that you didn’t bleat like a retarded sheep and nitpick the idea to which I was responding, namely that morality was about maximising global awesomeness (or some other such straight-line-to-tyranny). No demand for a definitions of terms, no babble about how that won’t do for coding your make-believe AI, no gabble about expression.
And last but not least—given that you’ve already exhibited ‘bounded literacy’: what gives you the right to judge anybody?
I’m not going demand that we compare academic transcripts—you don’t have a hope on that metric—just some indication apart from “I feel strongly about this” will suffice. Preferably one that doesn’t confuse the second person possessive with the second person (present tense) of the verb “to be”.
I suggest you don’t be so hasty to accuse people of dishonesty. Downvoted without comment from now on, since you seem incapable of doing anything other than insulting and accusing them of various crimes.
I also find it bitterly amusing that someone who admitted to taking delight out of trolling people presumes to even have an opinion about morality, let alone accuse others of dishonesty. And indeed you clearly don’t have an opinion about morality, you obviously only have opinions about politics and keep confusing the two concepts. All your babble about tyranny-tyranny-state-violence-whatever, would still not be useful in helping a five-year old learn why he should be nice to his sister or polite to his grandmother, or explain why our brain evaluates it morally better to make someone feel happy than to make them feel sad, all else being equal.
If you have a moral sense, instead of just political lectures, you’ve yet to display it at all.
Again ArisKatsaris—the “correct-line-ometer” prevents me from responding directly to your comment (way to stifle the ability to respond, site-designers!). So I’ma put it here...
It was a comment—not a thesis, not a manifesto, not a monograph, and certainly not a “description of what morality entails”.
To assert otherwise is to be dishonest, or to be sufficiently stupid as to expect a commenter’s entire view on an important aspect of moral philosophy to be able to be transmitted in (roughly) 21 words (the bold bit at the end). Or to be a bit of both, I guess—if you expect that it will advance your ends, maybe that suffices.
Here’s something to print out and sticky-tape to your monitor: if ever I decide to give a complete, sufficient explanation of what I think is a “description of what morality entails”, it will be identified as such, will be significantly longer than 21 words, and will not have anything to do with programming an AI (on which: as a first step, and having only thought about this once since 1995, it seems to me that it would make sense to build in the concept of utility-interdependence, the notion of economic efficiency, and an understanding of what happens to tyrants in repeated, many-player dynamic games.)
Downvoted, as I will be downvoting every comment of yours that whines about downvotes from now on. Your downvotes have nothing to do with your positions, which are pretty common in their actual content around these parts, and everything to do with your horrid manner and utter incapacity of forming sentences that actually communicate meanings.
And as such it was judged and found wanting.
Then it shouldn’t have started with the words “morality is about...”
It’s you who put it in bold letters. Perhaps you should start not emphasizing sentences which aren’t important ones.
A sentence can be important without being the complete rendition of one’s views on a topic: you’re being dishonest (again).
Seriously, if you spent as much mental effort on bringing yourself up to speed with core concepts as you do on misdirection and trying to be everyone’s schoolmarm, the community (for which you obviously purport to speak) would be better off.
I note that you didn’t bleat like a retarded sheep and nitpick the idea to which I was responding, namely that morality was about maximising global awesomeness (or some other such straight-line-to-tyranny). No demand for a definitions of terms, no babble about how that won’t do for coding your make-believe AI, no gabble about expression.
And last but not least—given that you’ve already exhibited ‘bounded literacy’: what gives you the right to judge anybody?
I’m not going demand that we compare academic transcripts—you don’t have a hope on that metric—just some indication apart from “I feel strongly about this” will suffice. Preferably one that doesn’t confuse the second person possessive with the second person (present tense) of the verb “to be”.
I suggest you don’t be so hasty to accuse people of dishonesty. Downvoted without comment from now on, since you seem incapable of doing anything other than insulting and accusing them of various crimes.
I also find it bitterly amusing that someone who admitted to taking delight out of trolling people presumes to even have an opinion about morality, let alone accuse others of dishonesty. And indeed you clearly don’t have an opinion about morality, you obviously only have opinions about politics and keep confusing the two concepts. All your babble about tyranny-tyranny-state-violence-whatever, would still not be useful in helping a five-year old learn why he should be nice to his sister or polite to his grandmother, or explain why our brain evaluates it morally better to make someone feel happy than to make them feel sad, all else being equal.
If you have a moral sense, instead of just political lectures, you’ve yet to display it at all.