I find it interesting that Less Wrong appears to be rediscovering existing ethical theories.
This article argues for a form of virtue ethics arising from utilitarianism—in order to be a good person, simulate an alternate self free of whatever desire is applicable, and then use them as a moral exemplar.
Similarly, Elizer’s arguments for Coherent Extrapolated Volition in FAI bear a striking resemblance to Rousseau’s arguments regarding the collective will of a state.
We have a large body of collected philosophical thought available to us. At least some of those concepts are adaptable to everyday problems and therefore useful things to carry around in your mind. However, biases exist that make many people hesitant to listen to historical sources: “In the past, people had less technology than we do” is often conflated into “in the past, people were less intelligent than we are.”
Even if we accept that people in the past were less intelligent, that still doesn’t rule out that they may have had some good ideas. If it did, then we would be able to make arguments from human reasoning. “People from the past said it” is not an argument for or against a topic any more than “Hitler said it.” (Note that this also is an argument against the failure mode of treating these ideas as the “wisdom of the ancients.”)
It seems to me that a general critical reading of acclaimed philosophers could save everyone in the Less Wrong community a lot of trouble reinventing their ideas, given that examining an already-stated hypothesis is a lot easier than going out and finding one.
We have a large body of collected philosophical thought available to us. At least some of those concepts are adaptable to everyday problems and therefore useful things to carry around in your mind. However, biases exist that make many people hesitant to listen to historical sources: “In the past, people had less technology than we do” is often conflated into “in the past, people were less intelligent than we are.”
I think the more serious issue is that the body of collected philosophical thought is too large. That is:
given that examining an already-stated hypothesis is a lot easier than going out and finding one.
It’s not obvious to me that this is true. I think there’s a large benefit from a single person doing a deep dive on something, and reporting the results: “This is what I learned reading Rousseau that’s relevant to rationality.” This way all the community needs to do to learn about Rousseau’s connection to rationality (on a conversational level, at least) is read the post, and if they see a specific idea and think “I want to read more about that,” then they know exactly where to start.
(I follow this advice and write reviews of books for LW; my interests are in decision-making, and so that’s where my reviews are. If your interests are in philosophy, that’s a good way to contribute significant value to the community, and earn a bunch of karma in the process.)
This article argues for a form of virtue ethics arising from utilitarianism—in order to be a good person, simulate an alternate self free of whatever desire is applicable, and then use them as a moral exemplar.
Really? I read it simply as as a way to combat social anxiety/decision fatigue/akrasia—object-level advice, in other words, nothing to do with ethics or meta-ethics or whatever. You seem to be reading a philosophical bent into this that I don’t think was particularly present in the actual article. Likewise with the article on Beeminder.
As for CEV and Rousseau, well, I haven’t read much Rousseau, but I sincerely doubt that he had anything close to FAI in mind when constructing his arguments regarding the “collective will of a state”. Note also that a “state”, i.e. a political body, is not at all the same as the entirety of humanity. The latter requires far more cognitive science and psychology to investigate—fields that were hardly present in Rousseau’s time, if at all. Are you sure the comparison here is valid?
Finally, on your point regarding mainstream philosophy: it seems reasonable to say that there are probably some useful insights out there in philosophy. Getting to these insights, however, often requires wading through large amounts of bad thinking and motivated cognition. The problem with philosophers is that often they are smart, but not rational. As a result, they are great at making elaborate arguments that sound convincing (and the issue is further muddled by the dense and obscure language a lot of them seem to like to use), but in fact are motivated by something other than truth-seeking, e.g. “This position seems aesthetically/morally/intuitively pleasing to me; therefore I will argue for it.” If 90% of mainstream philosophy is useless and only 10% is useful, it seems to me as though my time (and the time of fellow LW readers) could be better spent on other things.
I find it interesting that Less Wrong appears to be rediscovering existing ethical theories.
This article argues for a form of virtue ethics arising from utilitarianism—in order to be a good person, simulate an alternate self free of whatever desire is applicable, and then use them as a moral exemplar.
Similarly, Elizer’s arguments for Coherent Extrapolated Volition in FAI bear a striking resemblance to Rousseau’s arguments regarding the collective will of a state.
Another example of this that springs to mind is this less-popular post on beeminding sin. http://lesswrong.com/lw/hwm/beeminding_sin/
We have a large body of collected philosophical thought available to us. At least some of those concepts are adaptable to everyday problems and therefore useful things to carry around in your mind. However, biases exist that make many people hesitant to listen to historical sources: “In the past, people had less technology than we do” is often conflated into “in the past, people were less intelligent than we are.”
Even if we accept that people in the past were less intelligent, that still doesn’t rule out that they may have had some good ideas. If it did, then we would be able to make arguments from human reasoning. “People from the past said it” is not an argument for or against a topic any more than “Hitler said it.” (Note that this also is an argument against the failure mode of treating these ideas as the “wisdom of the ancients.”)
It seems to me that a general critical reading of acclaimed philosophers could save everyone in the Less Wrong community a lot of trouble reinventing their ideas, given that examining an already-stated hypothesis is a lot easier than going out and finding one.
I think the more serious issue is that the body of collected philosophical thought is too large. That is:
It’s not obvious to me that this is true. I think there’s a large benefit from a single person doing a deep dive on something, and reporting the results: “This is what I learned reading Rousseau that’s relevant to rationality.” This way all the community needs to do to learn about Rousseau’s connection to rationality (on a conversational level, at least) is read the post, and if they see a specific idea and think “I want to read more about that,” then they know exactly where to start.
(I follow this advice and write reviews of books for LW; my interests are in decision-making, and so that’s where my reviews are. If your interests are in philosophy, that’s a good way to contribute significant value to the community, and earn a bunch of karma in the process.)
Really? I read it simply as as a way to combat social anxiety/decision fatigue/akrasia—object-level advice, in other words, nothing to do with ethics or meta-ethics or whatever. You seem to be reading a philosophical bent into this that I don’t think was particularly present in the actual article. Likewise with the article on Beeminder.
As for CEV and Rousseau, well, I haven’t read much Rousseau, but I sincerely doubt that he had anything close to FAI in mind when constructing his arguments regarding the “collective will of a state”. Note also that a “state”, i.e. a political body, is not at all the same as the entirety of humanity. The latter requires far more cognitive science and psychology to investigate—fields that were hardly present in Rousseau’s time, if at all. Are you sure the comparison here is valid?
Finally, on your point regarding mainstream philosophy: it seems reasonable to say that there are probably some useful insights out there in philosophy. Getting to these insights, however, often requires wading through large amounts of bad thinking and motivated cognition. The problem with philosophers is that often they are smart, but not rational. As a result, they are great at making elaborate arguments that sound convincing (and the issue is further muddled by the dense and obscure language a lot of them seem to like to use), but in fact are motivated by something other than truth-seeking, e.g. “This position seems aesthetically/morally/intuitively pleasing to me; therefore I will argue for it.” If 90% of mainstream philosophy is useless and only 10% is useful, it seems to me as though my time (and the time of fellow LW readers) could be better spent on other things.