There are a few significant things to say about this post. The first is that you ought to read the Metaethics sequence (long version) or Value Theory (abridged version). Knowing how our current values arose is reason for pessimism about whether AIs we create will share our values, about humanity’s values in unsteered futures, and about what the values of aliens might look like. Knowing how our current values arose is not something that should move us away from them, or confuse us about which things are good and bad.
The impression I get from this post is that you’re trying to argue, through subtextual moves, that values are explained away rather than merely explained. You make a number of subtle errors, which consistently bend towards that direction. The practical upshot of which is that you are spreading falsehoods about moral philosophy which, if widespread, would make people adopt worse values and make the world worse.
You mix up your tenses in sneaky way, projecting bad aspects of the past onto the future:
“Cultural values which valorize physical male violence and facilitate its coordination at scale will become the dominant paradigm purely as a result of the circumstances’ ruthless logic.”
“Any folklore or morality code which facilitated this core mission will replicate, spread, and become enshrined as humanity’s unquestioned zeitgeist.”
“Fundamental to this community’s well-being is a male’s ability to commit acts of horrific physical violence in his individual capacity and to coordinate others to do the same”
(Emphasis added).
You speak positively of violence through the lens of past societies that needed it, without disclaiming that it’s bad in a present-day lens:
“The men of martial prowess — those exceptionally good at killing people and taking their shit — were appropriately exalted and deified for the base survival and material gain they were able to provide to their community.”
Taken together, these make me think that you would prefer to live in a world of pure Azathoth, with more violence and more oppression.
You mix up your tenses in sneaky way, projecting bad aspects of the past onto the future:
I think this would normally be an astute observation but in my case mixing up tenses has been a persistent source of frustration for my editors. Despite the scolding I get and my efforts to watch out for it, I screw this up constantly (I don’t know if this explains it but English is my third language and I mostly learned it in an ad-hoc manner). All I can say now is that the tense mix-up was an inadvertent error on my part. When I talk about which cultural values “will become” the dominant paradigm, I wasn’t referring to the future or present, but rather a jump forward in time from one past date to another (e.g. from 600 AD to 605 AD or whatever). Same when I talk about which code “will replicate”, it’s about a date in the past that is future from another date in the past. When I talk about “this community” I was referring to communities in the past that materially profited off of warfare.
I’m normally really bad at conjugating verbs consistently, so the mixed up tenses should not be seen as evidence of any hidden messages. I don’t know if that clears up any ambiguity.
You speak positively of violence through the lens of past societies that needed it, without disclaiming that it’s bad in a present-day lens
You’re not the only one to make this criticism but I admit I’m confused by it. I’m generally an optimist about the human condition largely because of how personally thrilling and eternally grateful I am towards the steady obsolescence of violence as a solution in modern life. I think it’s a Good Thing™ that humans nowadays are significantly more inclined to favor peaceful cooperation over violent conquest. But if I had to include throat-clearing passages in between all my sentences (violence is bad! trade is good! slavery is bad! peace is good! etc.) I wouldn’t fault the reader who would find this patronizing and infantilizing.
So in the passage you quoted above, I relay an observation that Men of Violence were “appropriately” praised by their community. All this means is that, purely from a base material gain, the community had a reason to praise conquerors who bring back stolen and looted riches. “Appropriately” here serves only to distinguish whether the community was acting arbitrarily or rationally; it was not at all intended to be praise for that conduct. The description here was fully intended to describe what is, not what ought. I’m reminded of a similar confusion regarding the “evolutionary benefits” of rape. Describing how sexual coercion can be a “successful” evolutionary strategy is not at all the same thing as arguing that rape is “good” or whatever. I would hope that this distinction is well established within these circles.
I already worry too much about being overly wordy, so in the interest of brevity and also to reduce the risk of coming off as patronizing, I avoid repeating points I think are too obvious. So in this case, I didn’t find it necessary to repeatedly disclaim how much I dislike rape, slavery, and violence. The exclusion of my denunciations in my post should not be taken as evidence of endorsement.
Then you quote Samuel Cartwright “conjuring up creatively compelling excuses” for slavery, and never argue against the quotation.
Do you mean this quote?
Gurwinder cites exactly such an example with the 19th century physician Samuel A. Cartwright:
A strong believer in slavery, he used his learning to avoid the clear and simple realization that slaves who tried to escape didn’t want to be slaves, and instead diagnosed them as suffering from a mental disorder he called drapetomania, which could be remedied by “whipping the devil” out of them. It’s an explanation so idiotic only an intellectual could think of it.
That’s someone criticizing Cartwright’s practice of coming up with such excuses, so having the quote is already an argument against Cartwright (and thus slavery). Arguing against the quotation would be arguing for slavery and oppression.
The first is that you ought to read the Metaethics sequence (long version) or Value Theory (abridged version).
Why? Does it solve everything? Does it make any good points?
Knowing how our current values arose is reason for pessimism about whether AIs we create will share our values, about humanity’s values in unsteered futures, and about what the values of aliens might look like.
I am very unconvinced that we humans have a single coherent set of values, and reading the metaethics sequence did not change my mind—the claim is assumed , not proven.
There are a few significant things to say about this post. The first is that you ought to read the Metaethics sequence (long version) or Value Theory (abridged version). Knowing how our current values arose is reason for pessimism about whether AIs we create will share our values, about humanity’s values in unsteered futures, and about what the values of aliens might look like. Knowing how our current values arose is not something that should move us away from them, or confuse us about which things are good and bad.
The impression I get from this post is that you’re trying to argue, through subtextual moves, that values are explained away rather than merely explained. You make a number of subtle errors, which consistently bend towards that direction. The practical upshot of which is that you are spreading falsehoods about moral philosophy which, if widespread, would make people adopt worse values and make the world worse.
You mix up your tenses in sneaky way, projecting bad aspects of the past onto the future:
(Emphasis added).
You speak positively of violence through the lens of past societies that needed it, without disclaiming that it’s bad in a present-day lens:
Taken together, these make me think that you would prefer to live in a world of pure Azathoth, with more violence and more oppression.
Which is bad.
Strong downvoted.
I think this would normally be an astute observation but in my case mixing up tenses has been a persistent source of frustration for my editors. Despite the scolding I get and my efforts to watch out for it, I screw this up constantly (I don’t know if this explains it but English is my third language and I mostly learned it in an ad-hoc manner). All I can say now is that the tense mix-up was an inadvertent error on my part. When I talk about which cultural values “will become” the dominant paradigm, I wasn’t referring to the future or present, but rather a jump forward in time from one past date to another (e.g. from 600 AD to 605 AD or whatever). Same when I talk about which code “will replicate”, it’s about a date in the past that is future from another date in the past. When I talk about “this community” I was referring to communities in the past that materially profited off of warfare.
I’m normally really bad at conjugating verbs consistently, so the mixed up tenses should not be seen as evidence of any hidden messages. I don’t know if that clears up any ambiguity.
You’re not the only one to make this criticism but I admit I’m confused by it. I’m generally an optimist about the human condition largely because of how personally thrilling and eternally grateful I am towards the steady obsolescence of violence as a solution in modern life. I think it’s a Good Thing™ that humans nowadays are significantly more inclined to favor peaceful cooperation over violent conquest. But if I had to include throat-clearing passages in between all my sentences (violence is bad! trade is good! slavery is bad! peace is good! etc.) I wouldn’t fault the reader who would find this patronizing and infantilizing.
So in the passage you quoted above, I relay an observation that Men of Violence were “appropriately” praised by their community. All this means is that, purely from a base material gain, the community had a reason to praise conquerors who bring back stolen and looted riches. “Appropriately” here serves only to distinguish whether the community was acting arbitrarily or rationally; it was not at all intended to be praise for that conduct. The description here was fully intended to describe what is, not what ought. I’m reminded of a similar confusion regarding the “evolutionary benefits” of rape. Describing how sexual coercion can be a “successful” evolutionary strategy is not at all the same thing as arguing that rape is “good” or whatever. I would hope that this distinction is well established within these circles.
I already worry too much about being overly wordy, so in the interest of brevity and also to reduce the risk of coming off as patronizing, I avoid repeating points I think are too obvious. So in this case, I didn’t find it necessary to repeatedly disclaim how much I dislike rape, slavery, and violence. The exclusion of my denunciations in my post should not be taken as evidence of endorsement.
Do you mean this quote?
That’s someone criticizing Cartwright’s practice of coming up with such excuses, so having the quote is already an argument against Cartwright (and thus slavery). Arguing against the quotation would be arguing for slavery and oppression.
Ack, I misread that, sorry. Will edit the grandparent comment to remove that part.
Why? Does it solve everything? Does it make any good points?
I am very unconvinced that we humans have a single coherent set of values, and reading the metaethics sequence did not change my mind—the claim is assumed , not proven.
(A commentator notices the problem: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fG3g3764tSubr6xvs/the-meaning-of-right?commentId=pgSokbnCJDWPbCRDC No one solves it)(But you responded by editing out the link to Meaning of Right).
Would that have been true if stated by a roman slave owner? If his values were wrong then, yours could be now.
(A commentator notes the problem—well, he uses Washington, not a Roman: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fG3g3764tSubr6xvs/the-meaning-of-right?commentId=eR5f6SZS3iJydHQsH)