I found out about Less Wrong from Slate Star Codex. I also read HPMOR last year, but hadn’t realised there was a connection between that and Less Wrong.
I am posting here because I have been thinking about morality. I get into a lot of debates that all boil down to the fact that people hold a very firm belief in a particular moral principle, to the extent that they would be happy to force others to live in accordance to that principle, without evaluating whether this principle is subjective or rational.
In response to this, I have come up with a framework for evaluating moral theories, and I would like to hear the rationalist community’s feedback. Briefly, what I propose is that a moral theory needs to meet three criteria: a) the ethical principles that comprise it must not be internally contradictory; b) its ethical principles must be non-arbitrary as far as possible (so, “be good to other people just because” is not good enough); and c) if the theory’s principles are taken to their logical conclusion, they must not lead to a society that the theory’s proponents themselves would consider dystopian.
I would like to hear people’s thoughts on this—if you think it’s intriguing, I am happy to submit an article to expand on my rationale for proposing this framework.
It seems like (a) and (c) are easily granted, but what’s your definition of “non-arbitrary”, and how should we determine if that definition is itself a non-arbitrary one?
This topic is one I enjoy thinking about so thank you for your post :)
My definition of non-arbitrary would be, can we derive your principle from facts on which everyone agrees? I can propose two such principles: a) liberty—in the absence of moral absolutes, the only thing you can say is live and let live, as to do otherwise is to presuppose the existence of some kind of moral authority; or b) survival of the fittest—there is no moral truth, and even liberty is arbitrary—why should I respect someone else’s liberty? If I am stronger, I should feel free to take what I can.
That said, I think there could also be an argument for some sort of virtue ethics—e.g. you could argue that perhaps there is absolute truth, and there are certain virtues that will help us discover it. But you’d need to be smarter than me to make a convincing argument in this line of thought.
Hello from Beijing.
I found out about Less Wrong from Slate Star Codex. I also read HPMOR last year, but hadn’t realised there was a connection between that and Less Wrong.
I am posting here because I have been thinking about morality. I get into a lot of debates that all boil down to the fact that people hold a very firm belief in a particular moral principle, to the extent that they would be happy to force others to live in accordance to that principle, without evaluating whether this principle is subjective or rational.
In response to this, I have come up with a framework for evaluating moral theories, and I would like to hear the rationalist community’s feedback. Briefly, what I propose is that a moral theory needs to meet three criteria: a) the ethical principles that comprise it must not be internally contradictory; b) its ethical principles must be non-arbitrary as far as possible (so, “be good to other people just because” is not good enough); and c) if the theory’s principles are taken to their logical conclusion, they must not lead to a society that the theory’s proponents themselves would consider dystopian.
I would like to hear people’s thoughts on this—if you think it’s intriguing, I am happy to submit an article to expand on my rationale for proposing this framework.
Best, Aris
It seems like (a) and (c) are easily granted, but what’s your definition of “non-arbitrary”, and how should we determine if that definition is itself a non-arbitrary one?
This topic is one I enjoy thinking about so thank you for your post :)
Thanks for your comment!
My definition of non-arbitrary would be, can we derive your principle from facts on which everyone agrees? I can propose two such principles: a) liberty—in the absence of moral absolutes, the only thing you can say is live and let live, as to do otherwise is to presuppose the existence of some kind of moral authority; or b) survival of the fittest—there is no moral truth, and even liberty is arbitrary—why should I respect someone else’s liberty? If I am stronger, I should feel free to take what I can.
That said, I think there could also be an argument for some sort of virtue ethics—e.g. you could argue that perhaps there is absolute truth, and there are certain virtues that will help us discover it. But you’d need to be smarter than me to make a convincing argument in this line of thought.