Would this be an accurate summary of what you think is the meta-ethics sequence? I feel that you captured the important bits but I also feel that we disagree on some aspects:
values that motivates actions (set of concepts that agents care about) are two placed computations, one for class of beings (and possibly other parameters locating them) and the other for individual beings.
If V(Humans, Alice) =/= V(Humans, ) that doesn’t make morality subjective, it is rather indicating that Alice is behaving immoraly.
V(Humans, ) (= morality) exists objectively insofar it is a computation instantiated by a class of agents at some point in time, but it is not a property of the world independent from the existence of any agents calculating it.
Morality is there because of evolution, and it happens to be a complicated and somewhat unexplored landscape, which means that it’s also fragile and possibly no one has a hold of it’s entirety.
Except that something is moral whether any being cares about morality or not, just like something is prime regardless of whether or not anyone cares about primality.
It’s not that morality is there because of evolution, but that being who CARE about morality are there because of evolution.
I’m not sure what you mean by fragile morality, but since you’ve gotten pretty much everything right, I suspect you’ve got the right idea, there, too.
Except that something is moral whether any being cares about morality or not, just like something is prime regardless of whether or not anyone cares about primality.
And what happens when you plug in MrMinds claim that there are multiple species specific moralities? Doesn’t that mean that every action is both moral and immoral from multiple perspective?
I think we’ve ceased to argue about anything but definitions.
Cut out “morality” and get:
Different species have different sets of values they respond to. Every action is valued according to some such sets fo values and not valued or negatively valued by other sets of values.
You can call any set of values “a” morality if you want, but I think that ceases to refer to what we’re talking about when we say something is moral whether anybody values it or not.
I’m not advocating the idea that morality is value, I am examining the implications of what other people have said.
You wrote an article purporting to explain the Yudkowskian theory of morality, and, indeed the one true theory of morality, since the two are the same.
Hypothetically, making a few comments about value, and nothing but value, doesn’t do what is advertised on the label. The reader would need to know how value relates back to morality.
And in fact you supplied the rather definitional sounding statement that Morality is Values.
If you base an argument on a definition ,don’t be surprised if people argue about it. The alternative, where someone can stipulate a definition, but no one can challenge it, is a game that will always be won by the first to move.
Except that something is moral whether any being cares about morality or not, just like something is prime regardless of whether or not anyone cares about primality.
And what happens when you plug in MrMinds claim that there are multiple species specific moralities? Doesn’t that mean that every action is both moral and immoral from multiple perspective?
Would this be an accurate summary of what you think is the meta-ethics sequence? I feel that you captured the important bits but I also feel that we disagree on some aspects:
values that motivates actions (set of concepts that agents care about) are two placed computations, one for class of beings (and possibly other parameters locating them) and the other for individual beings.
V(Elves, ) = Christmas spirity
V(Pebblesorters, ) = primality
V(Humans, _ ) = morality
If V(Humans, Alice) =/= V(Humans, ) that doesn’t make morality subjective, it is rather indicating that Alice is behaving immoraly. V(Humans, ) (= morality) exists objectively insofar it is a computation instantiated by a class of agents at some point in time, but it is not a property of the world independent from the existence of any agents calculating it. Morality is there because of evolution, and it happens to be a complicated and somewhat unexplored landscape, which means that it’s also fragile and possibly no one has a hold of it’s entirety.
I think that’s right.
Except that something is moral whether any being cares about morality or not, just like something is prime regardless of whether or not anyone cares about primality.
It’s not that morality is there because of evolution, but that being who CARE about morality are there because of evolution.
I’m not sure what you mean by fragile morality, but since you’ve gotten pretty much everything right, I suspect you’ve got the right idea, there, too.
And what happens when you plug in MrMinds claim that there are multiple species specific moralities? Doesn’t that mean that every action is both moral and immoral from multiple perspective?
I think we’ve ceased to argue about anything but definitions.
Cut out “morality” and get:
Different species have different sets of values they respond to. Every action is valued according to some such sets fo values and not valued or negatively valued by other sets of values.
You can call any set of values “a” morality if you want, but I think that ceases to refer to what we’re talking about when we say something is moral whether anybody values it or not.
I’m not advocating the idea that morality is value, I am examining the implications of what other people have said.
You wrote an article purporting to explain the Yudkowskian theory of morality, and, indeed the one true theory of morality, since the two are the same.
Hypothetically, making a few comments about value, and nothing but value, doesn’t do what is advertised on the label. The reader would need to know how value relates back to morality.
And in fact you supplied the rather definitional sounding statement that Morality is Values.
If you base an argument on a definition ,don’t be surprised if people argue about it. The alternative, where someone can stipulate a definition, but no one can challenge it, is a game that will always be won by the first to move.
And what happens when you plug in MrMinds claim that there are multiple species specific moralities? Doesn’t that mean that every action is both moral and immoral from multiple perspective?