Someone who thinks that morality (or even an important part of morality) is “co-operate with the good people, punish the bad” is immediately revealing the shallowness of their thinking (and incidentally, giving me a 90%+ chance of guessing their politics).
It should be “co-operate with good actions, punish bad actions.” And you can get that unambiguously with a graph, providing you also (separately) have a ranker on action value. But you can’t get anywhere without a ranker on action value, as the post adequately demonstrates.
This comment seems to have missed the point that by looking at who you are cooperating with you are declaring the “ranker on action value” to be what the people who cooperate with each other do. Which is a clever way of getting around the problem of having to have an independent machine that ranks actions that somehow people are supposed to agree isn’t just a matter of assuming what is moral in your assumptions rather than discovering it as a conclusion.
The way I wrote this, I ranked your action. How different is it if I say “you are wrong’ and downvote you, and people look at graphs of who downvoted whom?
Someone who thinks that morality (or even an important part of morality) is “co-operate with the good people, punish the bad” is immediately revealing the shallowness of their thinking (and incidentally, giving me a 90%+ chance of guessing their politics).
It should be “co-operate with good actions, punish bad actions.” And you can get that unambiguously with a graph, providing you also (separately) have a ranker on action value. But you can’t get anywhere without a ranker on action value, as the post adequately demonstrates.
This comment seems to have missed the point that by looking at who you are cooperating with you are declaring the “ranker on action value” to be what the people who cooperate with each other do. Which is a clever way of getting around the problem of having to have an independent machine that ranks actions that somehow people are supposed to agree isn’t just a matter of assuming what is moral in your assumptions rather than discovering it as a conclusion.
The way I wrote this, I ranked your action. How different is it if I say “you are wrong’ and downvote you, and people look at graphs of who downvoted whom?