Downvoted, sockpuppet.
NMJablonski
Karma: 502
Hey! That’s great. Excited to meet you :)
I’m sorry I missed it. I’ll check in regularly for info on the next one.
Austin LW’er here. I totally would have come to this, but somehow I missed the announcement in the meta-meetup thread. I will watch for the next one of these and absolutely be there.
Edit: Wait… why was this downvoted?
Upvoted.
I’m starting to think this will not end well. We’ve started down a much too familiar non-theist and religionist conversation path.
I swear, if you can make an ironclad rational argument for Mormonism, I will personally convert.
Seconded. I am entirely open to models of the universe that better fit the evidence at hand than the ones I have. If you (calcsam) can present a convincing case for the accuracy and validity of your beliefs I will adopt them as well.
For a most of my life I thought I didn’t enjoy music. Then I realized that I just don’t like the music everyone listens to. The stuff that comes out of my radio is extremely unpleasant, but with much searching I have found some music that I do enjoy.
You’re signalling to me right now that you have no desire to have a productive conversation. I don’t know if you’re meaning to do that, but I’m not going to keep asking questions if it seems like you have no intent to answer them.
Let’s break this all the way down. Can you give me your thesis?
I mean, I see there is a claim here:
The aliens do not want to be exterminated so they should not exterminate.
… of the format (X therefore Y). I can understand what the (X) part of it means: aliens with a preference not to be destroyed. Now the (Y) part is a little murky. You’re saying that the truth of X implies that they “should not exterminate”. What does the word should mean there?
What would it mean for a utility function to be objectively wrong? How would one determine that a utility function has the property of “wrongness”?
Please, do not answer “by reasoning about it” unless you are willing to provide that reasoning.
So, we’re working with thomblake’s definition of “wrong” as those actions which reduce utility for whatever function an agent happens to care about. The aliens care about themselves not being exterminated, but may actually assign very high utility to humans being wiped out.
Perhaps we would be viewed as pests, like rats or pigeons. Just as humans can assign utility to exterminating rats, the aliens could do so for us.
Exterminating humans has the objectively determinable outcome of reducing the utility in your subjectively privileged function.
Okay, we don’t disagree at all.
There is an objective sense in which actions have consequences. I am always surprised when people seem to think I’m denying this. Science works, there is a concrete and objective reality, and we can with varying degrees of accuracy predict outcomes with empirical study. Zero disagreement from me on that point.
So, we judge consequences of actions with our preferences. One can be empirically incorrect about what consequences an action can have, and if you choose to define “wrong” as those actions which reduce the utility of whatever function you happen to care about, then sure, we can determine that objectively too. All I am saying is that there is no objective method for selecting the function to use, and it seems like we’re in agreement on that.
Namely, we privilege utility functions which value human life only because of facts about our brains, as shaped by our genetics, evolution, and experiences. If an alien came along and saw humans as a pest to be eradicated, we could say:
“Exterminating us is wrong!”
… and the alien could say:
“LOL. No, silly humans. Exterminating you is right!”
And there is no sense in which either party has an objective “rightness” that the other lacks. They are each referring to the utility functions they care about.
Is there a sense in which there are “two” rocks here, even if there were no agent to count the rocks? Is there a sense in which murder is wrong, even if there was never anyone to murder or observe murder?
I can understand what physical conditions you are describing when you say “two rocks”. What does it mean, in a concrete and substantive sense, for murder to be “wrong”?
We are, near as I can tell, in perfect agreement on the substance of this issue. Aumann would be proud. :)
Unfortunately, I’m afraid I still don’t understand your point.
I think we may have reached the somewhat common on LW point where we’re arguing even though we have no disagreement.
sociological phenomenon … still reasonable to disapprove of murder, etc.
Yup.
Could an agent with different preferences from ours reasonably approve of murder?
Yes to that too.
I very, very, strongly disapprove of terrorism. Terrorists, of course, would disagree. There is no objective sense in which one of us can be “right”, unless you go out of your way to specifically define “right” as those actions which agree with one side or the other. The privileging of those actions as “right” still originates from the subjective values of whatever agent is judging.
Thanks, CuSithBell, I think you’ve done a good job of making the issue plain. It does indeed all add up to normality.
For that matter, I do not punish to transfer funds from healthy young males to impoverished old ladies who have not been stolen from
There are people who feel there is a moral imperative to do just that. Likewise, there is wide disagreement over what deserves punishment. An orthodox Jew, a Muslim, a Catholic, a Lutheran, a Communist, and a Vulcan walk into a bar… I’m sure we can all see the potential for punchlines.
You may punish action X which violates your preferences because you want to see people punished for action X. You could simultaneously choose not to punish action Y which violates your preferences, because for whatever reason you would prefer people not be punished for it. Others could disagree, and people often do disagree on what deserves punishment and what doesn’t.
Neither side in such a debate is objectively incorrect. Each would indeed prefer their position of punishment or non-punishment.
we punish those who steal from old ladies, because the stealing is wrong.
I would say we punish those who steal from old ladies because we would prefer the old ladies not be stolen from. It is that preference, the subjective value we all (except the thief of course) place on a society where the meek are not abused by criminals, that causes us to call that behavior “wrong”.
The evolutionary origins of that preference seem pretty obvious. In any group of social animals there will be one or two top physical competitors, and the remainder would be subject to their will. Of those many weaker individuals, the ones who survived to procreate were those who banded together to make bully-free tribes.
So, there are people who disagree with what you posted, and may be inclined to argue about it. That, combined with the idea shared in the Paul Graham quote in this very thread (about politics frequently being used as a form of identity) leads to defensiveness, leads to rationalization, and leads to stupidity.
So, in order to avoid stupid arguments, people would prefer fewer posts like your quote on LW.
Dude, if you’re going to make a dozen accounts to talk up your post, you can’t use the same deranged writing style in all of them.