If there are no moral facts, why are you telling us what we should and should not do?
Overindulging in fatty, sweet, salty foods appears to be harmful; this is why one may do well to limit it. What corresponding harm do you see done by tipping waitresses that one will never see again, that would be prevented by the moral code that you advocate?
You’re not explicit about it, but you appear to be advocating “selfish utilitarianism”: the principle that one’s personal utility is the only proper moral value, and should consider other people only as a means to one’s own benefit. But as I said, having thrown out shoulds at the start, I don’t see how you get them back in.
The first rule of rebasing your entire ethics system is that you never tell anyone you’ve rebased your entire ethics system.
For much the same reasons that you should never tell anyone you’re a serial killer.
I second Yvain’s recommendation for further reading.
It’s easy: not tipping gives you an extra 18% of your dining out budget that you can spend on hookers & blow.
Better minds that I have talked about the quest for purpose in the absense of faith and I choose deliberately not to endorse any particular moral goal in this piece. selfish utilitarianism (is this really any different from hedonism?) is a good a goal as any although it’s not one I personally choose as a moral end goal.
The crux of the argument is not about how you should act but you how you should fight your own moral revulsion when deciding how you should act.
For me, your comments are more about ‘debasing language’ than rebasing ethics. Your word choices are distracting. … I feel something like mild moral revulsion to the words, ‘dick’, ‘hookers’ and ‘blow’.
What the ?.. The OP, Shalmanese, didn’t use “dick” in the post, only in a comment, and “hookers” and “blow” were used by someone else. You can find fault with the post on several grounds but “debasing language” seems out of line.
Under the scroll bar on the right hand side of the comment box, you will find a “Help” link that explains how to formulate links. (LessWrong uses Markdown syntax, if you are familiar with that.)
Better minds that I have talked about the quest for purpose in the absense of faith and I choose deliberately not to endorse any particular moral goal in this piece.
But you did. You said that people should fight against the moral impulse to do good to strangers at their own expense, and strive to ignore their moral revulsion at ill-treating strangers.
selfish utilitarianism (is this really any different from hedonism?) is a good a goal as any although it’s not one I personally choose as a moral end goal.
You are advocating it, but not choosing to follow it yourself?
The first person who understood nutrition didn’t start on a perfect diet from day 1. Dieting is hard and we’re still not very much closer to figuring out effective strategies of subverting our harmful evolutionary preferences. Rebasing ethics is at least as difficult so have some patience while it gets figured out.
I think I agree that morality might need tweaking from what evolution gave us. With dieting, the aim is to eat in a healthier way. What would the aim be with adjusting morality?
For me, this posts and its comments are more about ‘debasing language’ than rebasing ethics. Your word choices are distracting. I feel something like mild moral revulsion to the words, ‘dick’, ‘hookers’ and ‘blow’.
If there are no moral facts, why are you telling us what we should and should not do?
Overindulging in fatty, sweet, salty foods appears to be harmful; this is why one may do well to limit it. What corresponding harm do you see done by tipping waitresses that one will never see again, that would be prevented by the moral code that you advocate?
You’re not explicit about it, but you appear to be advocating “selfish utilitarianism”: the principle that one’s personal utility is the only proper moral value, and should consider other people only as a means to one’s own benefit. But as I said, having thrown out shoulds at the start, I don’t see how you get them back in.
For much the same reasons that you should never tell anyone you’re a serial killer.
I second Yvain’s recommendation for further reading.
It’s easy: not tipping gives you an extra 18% of your dining out budget that you can spend on hookers & blow.
Better minds that I have talked about the quest for purpose in the absense of faith and I choose deliberately not to endorse any particular moral goal in this piece. selfish utilitarianism (is this really any different from hedonism?) is a good a goal as any although it’s not one I personally choose as a moral end goal.
The crux of the argument is not about how you should act but you how you should fight your own moral revulsion when deciding how you should act.
‘Fight’ (action) is preceded by ‘should’.
For me, your comments are more about ‘debasing language’ than rebasing ethics. Your word choices are distracting. … I feel something like mild moral revulsion to the words, ‘dick’, ‘hookers’ and ‘blow’.
What the ?.. The OP, Shalmanese, didn’t use “dick” in the post, only in a comment, and “hookers” and “blow” were used by someone else. You can find fault with the post on several grounds but “debasing language” seems out of line.
Not in the original article, but Shalmanese did use those words here and here.
Under the scroll bar on the right hand side of the comment box, you will find a “Help” link that explains how to formulate links. (LessWrong uses Markdown syntax, if you are familiar with that.)
But you did. You said that people should fight against the moral impulse to do good to strangers at their own expense, and strive to ignore their moral revulsion at ill-treating strangers.
You are advocating it, but not choosing to follow it yourself?
The first person who understood nutrition didn’t start on a perfect diet from day 1. Dieting is hard and we’re still not very much closer to figuring out effective strategies of subverting our harmful evolutionary preferences. Rebasing ethics is at least as difficult so have some patience while it gets figured out.
I think I agree that morality might need tweaking from what evolution gave us. With dieting, the aim is to eat in a healthier way. What would the aim be with adjusting morality?
For me, this posts and its comments are more about ‘debasing language’ than rebasing ethics. Your word choices are distracting. I feel something like mild moral revulsion to the words, ‘dick’, ‘hookers’ and ‘blow’.