So, moral motivational internalism. Then I agree that we tend to reject it. For example, here. You can make it work by having “this motivates the person considering it” be incorporated into the definition of “right”, but that results in a relativist definition, and I don’t see any need for it anyway.
No, the idea of motivational internalism is that you can’t judge something as right or wrong without being motivated to pursue or avoid it. Like if the word “right” was short for “this thing matches my terminal values”.
The alternative is externalism, where “right” means {X, Y, Z} and we (some/most/all humans) are motivated to pursue it just because we like {X, Y, Z}.
Does “Intrinsic Motivation” in this context entail that all intelligent beings must necessarily do the right thing?
If so, then I agree that we tend to reject it. As for “without argument”… do you mean you’ve read the local discussions of the topic and find them unconvincing? Or do you mean you believe it hasn’t been discussed at all?
If not, then I don’t know what you’re saying.
If you prefer to continue expressing yourself in gnomic utterances, that’s of course your choice, but I find it an unhelpful way to communicate and will tap out here if so.
Are you under the impression that CEV advocates around here believe that all intelligent beings must necessarily do the right thing?
On the whole, confusion reigns, but there is a fairly consistent tendency to reject Intrinsic Motivation without argument.
What’s “Intrinsic Motivation”? The only hits for it on LW are about akrasia.
As in intrinsically motivating states and concpets
So, moral motivational internalism. Then I agree that we tend to reject it. For example, here. You can make it work by having “this motivates the person considering it” be incorporated into the definition of “right”, but that results in a relativist definition, and I don’t see any need for it anyway.
Motivational internalism may not be an obvious truth, but that doesn’t mean its falsehood is the default. I don’t see the relevance of the link.
So, basicly, what we call “terminal values”?
No, the idea of motivational internalism is that you can’t judge something as right or wrong without being motivated to pursue or avoid it. Like if the word “right” was short for “this thing matches my terminal values”.
The alternative is externalism, where “right” means {X, Y, Z} and we (some/most/all humans) are motivated to pursue it just because we like {X, Y, Z}.
Ah, OK. Thanks for explaining.
Does “Intrinsic Motivation” in this context entail that all intelligent beings must necessarily do the right thing?
If so, then I agree that we tend to reject it. As for “without argument”… do you mean you’ve read the local discussions of the topic and find them unconvincing? Or do you mean you believe it hasn’t been discussed at all?
If not, then I don’t know what you’re saying.
If you prefer to continue expressing yourself in gnomic utterances, that’s of course your choice, but I find it an unhelpful way to communicate and will tap out here if so.
If not, I’m
Little argument and none convincing.