I haven’t read much about ethics on LessWrong or in general, but I recall reading, in passing, things to the effect of, “Consequentialism (more specifically, utilitarianism) and deontology are not necessarily incompatible.” I always assumed that they were reconciled by taking utility maximization as the ideal case and deontology as the tractable approximation. “There may be situations in which killing others results in greater utility than not killing others, and those situations may even be more common than I think, but given imperfect information, limited time and cognitive resources, and the fact that not-killing usually results in better outcomes than killing, Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
If the idea is that deontology is good for instilling actual moral behavior in the real world because it’s more practically applicable and more psychologically appealing, then I think that virtue ethics is an even better fit, because it’s even more psychologically appealing, and therefore even more likely to be exercised in practice. Compare, “Not killing maximizes utility on average,” “Killing is wrong,” and “It is virtuous to be a person who does not kill.” I’m reminded of Roles Are Martial Arts for Agency.
And I’m still not very satisfied with the idea of something being an end-in-itself.
Hmm. I used to get depressed about natural explanations, but that was because I felt like something changed about the world when I learned something about it; but it was just my mind that changed. My emotions aren’t just the alien god’s fitness-maximizing adaptations, in the sense that they’re less than what they were before in some sense. They’re just the same thing. I think that you feel like the equation goes: Emotions - ‘meaning’ = Alien-God’s-Fitness-Maximizing-Adaptations. I feel like it goes: Emotions = Alien-God’s-Fitness-Maximizing-Adaptations. I still hope and dream and love and all of those nice, warm fuzzy things; I just know what they are now and what caused them, as opposed to them being mysterious.
Like, what do you think is missing in emotions and the like that you thought was there before? How do you expect this world to differ from the world that you thought you lived in? From the things that you’re talking about, I’m assuming that you’re referring to differences besides there being no afterlife. You don’t have to entertain me if you don’t want to.
I’ve come to realize that the reason I wrote this post was not to discuss the ethical systems at all. I’m not trying to discuss a general guideline for morality. I’m merely analyzing what leads humans in practice to make decisions. I think that happiness and goodness belong in the same category, and that this has to do with where to draw the boundary. I think the difference in practice between how a professing virtue ethicist acts and how a professing consequentialist acts is that the virtue ethicist tends to make more decisions on a subconscious level, while the consequentialist tends to make more decisions on a conscious level. Comparatively speaking.
Edit: I’ve tweaked the article a bit to better reflect this idea!
I still hope and dream and love and all of those nice, warm fuzzy things; I just know what they are now and what caused them, as opposed to them being mysterious.
Yeah, same, I think :) Any discontent I feel about that is on an understanding level, not an emotional level. Or rather, I didn’t fully understand the cause, but thanks to your explanation, now I understand a lot better. I think I’m going to change that heading.
I used to feel like this world was different than the world that I thought I lived in because of that whole “thief” thing I talked about near the beginning of the article. Coming to the conclusion that I did about goodness being a universal terminal value has helped me sort things out in my mind and acknowledge that I can follow my “conscience” without considering myself “irrational” for sometimes doing stuff, like effective altruism, that inefficiently optimizes my personal happiness.
I haven’t read much about ethics on LessWrong or in general, but I recall reading, in passing, things to the effect of, “Consequentialism (more specifically, utilitarianism) and deontology are not necessarily incompatible.” I always assumed that they were reconciled by taking utility maximization as the ideal case and deontology as the tractable approximation. “There may be situations in which killing others results in greater utility than not killing others, and those situations may even be more common than I think, but given imperfect information, limited time and cognitive resources, and the fact that not-killing usually results in better outcomes than killing, Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
If the idea is that deontology is good for instilling actual moral behavior in the real world because it’s more practically applicable and more psychologically appealing, then I think that virtue ethics is an even better fit, because it’s even more psychologically appealing, and therefore even more likely to be exercised in practice. Compare, “Not killing maximizes utility on average,” “Killing is wrong,” and “It is virtuous to be a person who does not kill.” I’m reminded of Roles Are Martial Arts for Agency.
Hmm. I used to get depressed about natural explanations, but that was because I felt like something changed about the world when I learned something about it; but it was just my mind that changed. My emotions aren’t just the alien god’s fitness-maximizing adaptations, in the sense that they’re less than what they were before in some sense. They’re just the same thing. I think that you feel like the equation goes: Emotions - ‘meaning’ = Alien-God’s-Fitness-Maximizing-Adaptations. I feel like it goes: Emotions = Alien-God’s-Fitness-Maximizing-Adaptations. I still hope and dream and love and all of those nice, warm fuzzy things; I just know what they are now and what caused them, as opposed to them being mysterious.
Like, what do you think is missing in emotions and the like that you thought was there before? How do you expect this world to differ from the world that you thought you lived in? From the things that you’re talking about, I’m assuming that you’re referring to differences besides there being no afterlife. You don’t have to entertain me if you don’t want to.
I’ve come to realize that the reason I wrote this post was not to discuss the ethical systems at all. I’m not trying to discuss a general guideline for morality. I’m merely analyzing what leads humans in practice to make decisions. I think that happiness and goodness belong in the same category, and that this has to do with where to draw the boundary. I think the difference in practice between how a professing virtue ethicist acts and how a professing consequentialist acts is that the virtue ethicist tends to make more decisions on a subconscious level, while the consequentialist tends to make more decisions on a conscious level. Comparatively speaking.
Edit: I’ve tweaked the article a bit to better reflect this idea!
Yeah, same, I think :) Any discontent I feel about that is on an understanding level, not an emotional level. Or rather, I didn’t fully understand the cause, but thanks to your explanation, now I understand a lot better. I think I’m going to change that heading.
I used to feel like this world was different than the world that I thought I lived in because of that whole “thief” thing I talked about near the beginning of the article. Coming to the conclusion that I did about goodness being a universal terminal value has helped me sort things out in my mind and acknowledge that I can follow my “conscience” without considering myself “irrational” for sometimes doing stuff, like effective altruism, that inefficiently optimizes my personal happiness.