But hold on, our ethical preferences aren’t designed to maximize other sapients’ preferences. Wouldn’t it be more ethical still to not want anything for yourself
Not necessarily. Ethics uncontentiously includes fairness. Treating an arbitrary person’s preferences as being
unimportant would be unfair, so treating your own preferences as unimportant would be unfair.
That would still be unfair if you want more than strict subsistence for others.
Why would you? Wouldn’t a society in which everyone’s preference would be to want nothing above strict subsistence be maximally satisfied if they all had nothing above strict subsistence?
They can take that very seriously, and all be maximally ethical, much more so than us. Huzzah!
(If we fire off comments like that, let’s consolidate the different lines of comments into one.)
Why would you? Wouldn’t a society in which everyone’s preference would be to want nothing above strict subsistence be maximally satisfied if they all had nothing above strict subsistence?
Whatever. People aren;t actually like that. What is your point?
They can take that very seriously, and all be maximally ethical, much more so than us. Huzzah!
But we are not suddenly going to stop wanting what we want. What is your point?
That your supposedly objectively-ethically-correct-for-all-minds “must maximize everyone’s preferences, including my own” ethics would score some strange society as the one I’ve outlined higher than anything humans could achieve. So that’s what your own correct ethics tell you to aspire to, no?
I dont think such a society is more virtuous, it is just a society where the bar is lower. The flipside is resource-rich societies where it is easier to do the right thing because there are more resources. That isnt more virtuous either, because it is not vicious to be unable to do the right thing because of lack or resources. Virtue and vice are about intention..
(Without knowing, I’m guessing you’re a Christian at 5:1, that you’re a theist at 10:1)
I dont think such a society is more virtuous, it is just a society where the bar is lower. The flipside is resource-rich societies where it is easier to do the right thing because there are more resources.
On the contrary, using less resources to satisfy yourself and others, all the other resources would be free to create more fully satisfied and happy beings. If you’re saving a lot of money and not buying yourself gadgets, that increases your ability to effect change, not diminishes it.
The funny thing is that if one participant in a discussion makes clear statements, and the other reads them carefully, there isn’t the slightest need for that kind of guesswork.
Not necessarily. Ethics uncontentiously includes fairness. Treating an arbitrary person’s preferences as being unimportant would be unfair, so treating your own preferences as unimportant would be unfair.
No, no. Wouldn’t it be more ethical if your preferences were “I want nothing above strict subsistence”.
You can take those preferences as seriously and important as anything.
More ethical, no?
That would still be unfair if you want more than strict subsistence for others.
Why would you? Wouldn’t a society in which everyone’s preference would be to want nothing above strict subsistence be maximally satisfied if they all had nothing above strict subsistence?
They can take that very seriously, and all be maximally ethical, much more so than us. Huzzah!
(If we fire off comments like that, let’s consolidate the different lines of comments into one.)
Whatever. People aren;t actually like that. What is your point?
But we are not suddenly going to stop wanting what we want. What is your point?
That your supposedly objectively-ethically-correct-for-all-minds “must maximize everyone’s preferences, including my own” ethics would score some strange society as the one I’ve outlined higher than anything humans could achieve. So that’s what your own correct ethics tell you to aspire to, no?
It’s a reductio ad absurdum, what else?
I dont think such a society is more virtuous, it is just a society where the bar is lower. The flipside is resource-rich societies where it is easier to do the right thing because there are more resources. That isnt more virtuous either, because it is not vicious to be unable to do the right thing because of lack or resources. Virtue and vice are about intention..
(Without knowing, I’m guessing you’re a Christian at 5:1, that you’re a theist at 10:1)
On the contrary, using less resources to satisfy yourself and others, all the other resources would be free to create more fully satisfied and happy beings. If you’re saving a lot of money and not buying yourself gadgets, that increases your ability to effect change, not diminishes it.
Why? My approach is explictly non-euthyphric. However, I notice you keep arguing with me as though I am a theist..
I am trying to distinguish between two sides of morlality—doing the right thing, and Virtue (AKA wanting to do the right thing).
Quick, quick! Make a bet that his stereotypical assumption is wrong!
It, um, is wrong, right?
The funny thing is that if one participant in a discussion makes clear statements, and the other reads them carefully, there isn’t the slightest need for that kind of guesswork.