That seems like a case of different terminal values, not a matter of irrationality.
It seems to me you’re using “terminal values” here to mean “provisionally terminal values we’ll have to work with for now because we aren’t going to make much progress on morality without something like FAI”. What you’re literally claiming seems much too strong considering our current lack of understanding of morality (or what a “terminal value” is, for that matter). If you literally meant terminal values then I… have nothing to say, but if you mean “provisionally terminal values yada yada” then that’s sort of unfortunate. Is there a short way of expressing
not a matter of irrationality.
I wrote a general screed arguing that this kind of “irrationality” is too-close-to-incoherent in a comment reply to XiXiDu. I’d agree it’s not a matter of irrationality, but the framework “terminal values”+”rationality” seems to me basically inapplicable to humans in the first place (i.e., it’s a crude approximation that rarely adds much and often misleads). The tone of my comment arguing such might make it unreadable but you might be interested in seeing it despite that.
But if we started distinguishing between provisional and real terminal values, how would I continue to use bold statements of self-expressive fiat to avoid thinking about complicated unsolved problems in ethical philosophy with potentially uncomfortable answers?
Oh, this one is obvious! You simply assert that everyone else’s “terminal values” are actually just provisional, whereas yours are real, due to a moral miracle. Or! Become a nihilist, or perhaps an existentialist, or join a vaguely plausible religion.
It seems to me you’re using “terminal values” here to mean “provisionally terminal values we’ll have to work with for now because we aren’t going to make much progress on morality without something like FAI”. What you’re literally claiming seems much too strong considering our current lack of understanding of morality (or what a “terminal value” is, for that matter). If you literally meant terminal values then I… have nothing to say, but if you mean “provisionally terminal values yada yada” then that’s sort of unfortunate. Is there a short way of expressing
I wrote a general screed arguing that this kind of “irrationality” is too-close-to-incoherent in a comment reply to XiXiDu. I’d agree it’s not a matter of irrationality, but the framework “terminal values”+”rationality” seems to me basically inapplicable to humans in the first place (i.e., it’s a crude approximation that rarely adds much and often misleads). The tone of my comment arguing such might make it unreadable but you might be interested in seeing it despite that.
“moral beliefs”
(we really could use a standard term for this)
But if we started distinguishing between provisional and real terminal values, how would I continue to use bold statements of self-expressive fiat to avoid thinking about complicated unsolved problems in ethical philosophy with potentially uncomfortable answers?
Oh, this one is obvious! You simply assert that everyone else’s “terminal values” are actually just provisional, whereas yours are real, due to a moral miracle. Or! Become a nihilist, or perhaps an existentialist, or join a vaguely plausible religion.
You have a point and Nick Tarleton’s response below is what I would have said if I had thought of it.
Above comment not completed (has abrupt break in middle) due to iOS and the text entry field and the cursor not working together nicely.