In the view of morality as “common value computation + local patches”, the world should seems unproblematic: it indicates that a certain option has more value than some other set of options, according to a morality. ‘Should’ in this view is seen as assuming three pieces of information: the morality of the speaker, the set of available options, the calculated highest/lowest value option.
This view decomposes the three sentences as such: 1) according to pebblesorter value computation, when building piles of pebbles a heap of X has never a positive value; 2) according to our drug dealer morality, when dealing with the police informer the highest value option is killing him and dump his body in the river; 3) according to pure morality, the correct computation of the highest value option in the Newcomb problem is one-boxing.
In the view of morality as “common value computation + local patches”, the world should seems unproblematic: it indicates that a certain option has more value than some other set of options, according to a morality.
‘Should’ in this view is seen as assuming three pieces of information: the morality of the speaker, the set of available options, the calculated highest/lowest value option.
This view decomposes the three sentences as such:
1) according to pebblesorter value computation, when building piles of pebbles a heap of X has never a positive value;
2) according to our drug dealer morality, when dealing with the police informer the highest value option is killing him and dump his body in the river;
3) according to pure morality, the correct computation of the highest value option in the Newcomb problem is one-boxing.
Also on the Eugene_Nier sentence:
deconstructed as:
4) according to pure morality, the Cox’s theorem shows that the only correct way to compute evidence updating is the Bayes’ rule.
“Pure morality” here is intended to mean valuing the things that humans usually value, instead of something like prime numbers heaps.