A few of the “distinct meanings” you list are very different from the others, but many of those are pretty similar. “Values” is a pretty broad term, including everything on the “ought” side of the is–ought divide, less “high-minded or noble” preferences, and one’s “ranking over possible worlds”, and that’s fine: it seems like a useful (and coherent!) concept to have a word for. You can be more specific with adjectives if context doesn’t adequately clarify what you mean.
Seeing through heaven’s eyes or not, I see no meaningful difference between the statements “I would like to sleep with that pretty girl” and “worlds in which I sleep with that pretty girl are better than the ones in which I don’t, ceteris paribus.” I agree this is the key difference: yes, I conflate these two meanings[1], and like the term “values” because it allows me to avoid awkward constructions like the latter when describing one’s motivations.
You can be more specific with adjectives if context doesn’t adequately clarify what you mean.
Well, can. Problem is that people on LessWrong actually do use the term (in my opinion) pretty excessively, in contrast to, say, philosophers or psychologists. This is no problem in concrete cases like in your example, but on LessWrong the discussion about “values” is usually abstract. The fact that people could be more specific didn’t so far imply that they are.
A few of the “distinct meanings” you list are very different from the others, but many of those are pretty similar. “Values” is a pretty broad term, including everything on the “ought” side of the is–ought divide, less “high-minded or noble” preferences, and one’s “ranking over possible worlds”, and that’s fine: it seems like a useful (and coherent!) concept to have a word for. You can be more specific with adjectives if context doesn’t adequately clarify what you mean.
Seeing through heaven’s eyes or not, I see no meaningful difference between the statements “I would like to sleep with that pretty girl” and “worlds in which I sleep with that pretty girl are better than the ones in which I don’t, ceteris paribus.” I agree this is the key difference: yes, I conflate these two meanings[1], and like the term “values” because it allows me to avoid awkward constructions like the latter when describing one’s motivations.
I actually don’t see two different meanings, but for the sake of argument, let’s grant that they exist.
Well, can. Problem is that people on LessWrong actually do use the term (in my opinion) pretty excessively, in contrast to, say, philosophers or psychologists. This is no problem in concrete cases like in your example, but on LessWrong the discussion about “values” is usually abstract. The fact that people could be more specific didn’t so far imply that they are.