I don’t know if this is johnswentworth’s intended meaning but I read this more as “instructions to be effective”, or “a discussion of how things are” not “approval of hypothetical alternate values”.
It is true that for a person to most effectively seek their own values they need to seek their own values rather than the values suggested by goodness. I don’t think agreeing with or discussing that sentiment should imply an approval of alternate values other people might have.
If someone did value torturing animals, I would want them to seek pleasure in the simulated torture of animals and for them to be prevented from torturing real animals because that is part of my values which are the ones I am trying to seek regardless of the values suggested by goodness or animal torturer’s values.
I think “people having freedom and capability to seek their own values” is also part of my values. It is a part that makes me want people to understand the relationship between their values and the values suggested by goodness and that really does create a contradiction in my values, but I don’t believe discussing the relationship between, or inequality of, peoples values and the values suggested by goodness should imply my values are permissive towards animal torturer’s values.
Still, I think the implication you have pointed out is a good one to clarify. Does my clarification make sense? I prefer it to johnswentworth’s steelmanning in his reply to your comment. Although, I agree with his sentiment that humans should be trying to understand our own values and negotiating and coordinating between people with different values, rather than seeking to find some objectively true values that I don’t believe exist.
I don’t know if this is johnswentworth’s intended meaning but I read this more as “instructions to be effective”, or “a discussion of how things are” not “approval of hypothetical alternate values”.
It is true that for a person to most effectively seek their own values they need to seek their own values rather than the values suggested by goodness. I don’t think agreeing with or discussing that sentiment should imply an approval of alternate values other people might have.
If someone did value torturing animals, I would want them to seek pleasure in the simulated torture of animals and for them to be prevented from torturing real animals because that is part of my values which are the ones I am trying to seek regardless of the values suggested by goodness or animal torturer’s values.
I think “people having freedom and capability to seek their own values” is also part of my values. It is a part that makes me want people to understand the relationship between their values and the values suggested by goodness and that really does create a contradiction in my values, but I don’t believe discussing the relationship between, or inequality of, peoples values and the values suggested by goodness should imply my values are permissive towards animal torturer’s values.
Still, I think the implication you have pointed out is a good one to clarify. Does my clarification make sense? I prefer it to johnswentworth’s steelmanning in his reply to your comment. Although, I agree with his sentiment that humans should be trying to understand our own values and negotiating and coordinating between people with different values, rather than seeking to find some objectively true values that I don’t believe exist.