1: First of all, I want to acknowledge my belief that Eliezer’s thought experiment is indeed usefuel, although it is “worse” than hypothetical. This is because it forces us to either face our psychological limitations when it comes to moral intuitions, or succumb to them (by arguing that the thought experiment is fundamentally unsound, in order to preserve harmony among our contradictive intuitions).
2: Once we admit that our patchwork’o’rules’o’thumb moral intuitions are indeed contradictive, the question remains if he is actually right. In another comment I have implied that one must either be an utilitarian or strictly amoral (actually I forgot the third option: one can be neither by being irrational). If this assertion is true then, in my book, Eliezer wins.
3: As I believe 1 to be sound, I’d really like to hear voices about 2. =)
1: First of all, I want to acknowledge my belief that Eliezer’s thought experiment is indeed usefuel, although it is “worse” than hypothetical. This is because it forces us to either face our psychological limitations when it comes to moral intuitions, or succumb to them (by arguing that the thought experiment is fundamentally unsound, in order to preserve harmony among our contradictive intuitions).
2: Once we admit that our patchwork’o’rules’o’thumb moral intuitions are indeed contradictive, the question remains if he is actually right. In another comment I have implied that one must either be an utilitarian or strictly amoral (actually I forgot the third option: one can be neither by being irrational). If this assertion is true then, in my book, Eliezer wins.
3: As I believe 1 to be sound, I’d really like to hear voices about 2. =)