Anyone have a logical solution to exactly why we should act altruistically?
“Logical … should” sounds like a type error, setting things up for a contradiction. While there are adherents of moral naturalism, I doubt there are many moral naturalists around here. Even given moral naturalism, I believe it would still be true that any amount of intelligence can coexist with any goals. So no, there is no reason why unconstrained intelligences should be altruistic, or even be the sort of thing that “altruism” could meaningfully be asserted or denied of them.
I know it makes sense evolutionarily through game theory and statistics, but human decision making is still controlled by emotions
...which came about through evolution, so what work is the “but” doing? The urge to do good for others is what the game theory feels like from inside.
it’s still most advantageous for an individual actor to follow their own self-interest to a degree in a social community.
Each knows their own needs and desires better than anyone else, so it’s primarily up to each person to ensure their own are fulfilled. Ensuring this often involves working with others. We do things for each other that we may individually prosper.
So, what type of altruism are you asking about? I expect Peter Singer would dismiss reciprocal altruism as weak sauce, a pale and perverted imitation of what he preaches. The EA variety inspired by Singer? Utilitarianism that values all equally to oneself, and feels another’s pain as intensely as one’s own? Saintliness that values everyone else above oneself who am nothing? There’s a long spectrum there, and people inhabiting all parts of it.
My confusion about this subject is that without moral naturalism, it seems moral philosophy can be derived from a psychological or sociological basis, which seems to me a much better model for producing results than philosophical arguments.
“Logical … should” sounds like a type error, setting things up for a contradiction. While there are adherents of moral naturalism, I doubt there are many moral naturalists around here. Even given moral naturalism, I believe it would still be true that any amount of intelligence can coexist with any goals. So no, there is no reason why unconstrained intelligences should be altruistic, or even be the sort of thing that “altruism” could meaningfully be asserted or denied of them.
...which came about through evolution, so what work is the “but” doing? The urge to do good for others is what the game theory feels like from inside.
Each knows their own needs and desires better than anyone else, so it’s primarily up to each person to ensure their own are fulfilled. Ensuring this often involves working with others. We do things for each other that we may individually prosper.
So, what type of altruism are you asking about? I expect Peter Singer would dismiss reciprocal altruism as weak sauce, a pale and perverted imitation of what he preaches. The EA variety inspired by Singer? Utilitarianism that values all equally to oneself, and feels another’s pain as intensely as one’s own? Saintliness that values everyone else above oneself who am nothing? There’s a long spectrum there, and people inhabiting all parts of it.
My confusion about this subject is that without moral naturalism, it seems moral philosophy can be derived from a psychological or sociological basis, which seems to me a much better model for producing results than philosophical arguments.