I don’t particularly case about convincing all possible agents. I care about doing value judgments correctly. I have two ways of judging ‘correct’: consistency with my gut feelings as a primate, and consistency with formalized methods of computation we have developed that give us more reliable answer to non-intuitive value questions. For now let’s go with the latter.
To me universal doesn’t mean it will convince all agents, since you can’t. Universal means it applies to anything you might draw a box around an label an agent, in the same way 2+2=4 applies. (It is correct within the framework we have found useful)
This means that universal morality has to apply to, for example, doorknobs. I can’t convince a doorknob, and a doorknob might do things contradicting that morality. This isn’t a flaw in my method of computation (or my labeling of it as right) and more than a broken calculator disproves math or someone buying a lottery ticket to get rich changes the ticket’s expected value.
If you’re arguing that ‘morality’ is what it stands for (us wanting pleasant things and not wanting horrible things) then why isn’t ‘correct’ also what it stands for (convincing arguments to us, which on a good day are rigorously logical.)
I don’t particularly case about convincing all possible agents. I care about doing value judgments correctly. I have two ways of judging ‘correct’: consistency with my gut feelings as a primate, and consistency with formalized methods of computation we have developed that give us more reliable answer to non-intuitive value questions. For now let’s go with the latter.
To me universal doesn’t mean it will convince all agents, since you can’t. Universal means it applies to anything you might draw a box around an label an agent, in the same way 2+2=4 applies. (It is correct within the framework we have found useful) This means that universal morality has to apply to, for example, doorknobs. I can’t convince a doorknob, and a doorknob might do things contradicting that morality. This isn’t a flaw in my method of computation (or my labeling of it as right) and more than a broken calculator disproves math or someone buying a lottery ticket to get rich changes the ticket’s expected value.
If you’re arguing that ‘morality’ is what it stands for (us wanting pleasant things and not wanting horrible things) then why isn’t ‘correct’ also what it stands for (convincing arguments to us, which on a good day are rigorously logical.)