It may be helpful to think of some social conventions as a protocol. Extended technology metaphor to follow.
The TCP/IP is full of standards that could have been done multiple ways and is in many places arbitrary; there’s no such thing as the objectively correct transmission protocol. That said, if someone ignores the TCP/IP and tries to send packets between computers with their own personal protocol, they’re not going to make much headway. There is a reasonable sense in which someone can say that they’re forming and sending their packets ‘wrong’ despite the arbitrary nature of the protocol, especially if they haven’t informed the other side how to decipher what they’re sending. Plus, if it turns out someone’s personal protocol says “if the handshake is not returned, send two copies of the original packet with their own handshakes” and therefore clogs up the network then I think it’s reasonable to say there’s probably something wrong with their personal protocol even if the system they’re trying to communicate with knows the protocol.
Interpersonal protocols are kind of like network protocols. There’s some sense of good and bad design around them, but no objective morality involved, just what works. Genuinely insulting people you like is kind of like trying to use your own personal communication standard with some shaky design choices on a public network; both ineffective at communication and capable of ruining someone else’s day. Whether effectiveness and human utility are moral is above my pay grade, but encouraging good protocols is worth doing.
(This example may or may not be drawn from my garbage fire of a morning. Hope everyone else is having a good day, and (sysadmin voice) is networking considerately!)
“This is because it isactuallywrong to insult your friends. I don’t have to set the explicit “don’t insult me” boundary; it is understood. ”
This could either be someone saying that insulting your friends is against the magical laws that are baked into the fabric of reality, or it could be someone saying that insulting your friends is a action which produces low quality outcomes in most situations, with most reward functions.
Based on how ozy writes and the fact that they frequent LW, I’d be willing to bet it’s the second one. They just haven’t made it super explicit attempt to avoid language that sounds sort of like moral objectivism.
Human ethics aren’t that divergent. There is a fact of the matter about what (WEIRD) humans generally consider to be wrong, and I think it is pretty clear that “seriously non-jokingly insulting your friends” falls into that category.
If a reader is like “actually, my value system implies I should deliberately try to hurt the feelings of people I like,” I suspect they won’t get much out of my blog posts.
You seem to be assuming some objective moral standard here? I’m interested in why:
You think there’s objective morality.
You think that you are able to persuade a community where moral non realism may be a popular opinion by assuming objective morality.
It may be helpful to think of some social conventions as a protocol. Extended technology metaphor to follow.
The TCP/IP is full of standards that could have been done multiple ways and is in many places arbitrary; there’s no such thing as the objectively correct transmission protocol. That said, if someone ignores the TCP/IP and tries to send packets between computers with their own personal protocol, they’re not going to make much headway. There is a reasonable sense in which someone can say that they’re forming and sending their packets ‘wrong’ despite the arbitrary nature of the protocol, especially if they haven’t informed the other side how to decipher what they’re sending. Plus, if it turns out someone’s personal protocol says “if the handshake is not returned, send two copies of the original packet with their own handshakes” and therefore clogs up the network then I think it’s reasonable to say there’s probably something wrong with their personal protocol even if the system they’re trying to communicate with knows the protocol.
Interpersonal protocols are kind of like network protocols. There’s some sense of good and bad design around them, but no objective morality involved, just what works. Genuinely insulting people you like is kind of like trying to use your own personal communication standard with some shaky design choices on a public network; both ineffective at communication and capable of ruining someone else’s day. Whether effectiveness and human utility are moral is above my pay grade, but encouraging good protocols is worth doing.
(This example may or may not be drawn from my garbage fire of a morning. Hope everyone else is having a good day, and (sysadmin voice) is networking considerately!)
“This is because it is actually wrong to insult your friends. I don’t have to set the explicit “don’t insult me” boundary; it is understood. ”
This could either be someone saying that insulting your friends is against the magical laws that are baked into the fabric of reality, or it could be someone saying that insulting your friends is a action which produces low quality outcomes in most situations, with most reward functions.
Based on how ozy writes and the fact that they frequent LW, I’d be willing to bet it’s the second one. They just haven’t made it super explicit attempt to avoid language that sounds sort of like moral objectivism.
Human ethics aren’t that divergent. There is a fact of the matter about what (WEIRD) humans generally consider to be wrong, and I think it is pretty clear that “seriously non-jokingly insulting your friends” falls into that category.
If a reader is like “actually, my value system implies I should deliberately try to hurt the feelings of people I like,” I suspect they won’t get much out of my blog posts.
The author does not belive in an objective morality, but the author does have strong preferences about how the world ought to be.
And why should anyone else care about his preferences?