Wiseman, if everyone were blissed-out by direct stimulation of their pleasure center all the time, would that by definition be moral progress?
Marshall, how is your “usefulness” not isomorphic to the word “good”? Useful for what?
Lowly Undergrad, early societies didn’t have this idea of reducing violent death to zero—through what mechanism did they acquire this belief, given that they didn’t start out with the idea that it was “moral progress”?
Robin Brandt, is whatever increasing technology does to a society, moral progress by definition, or does increasing technology only tend to cause moral progress?
Tim, if we all cooperated with each other all the time, would that by definition be moral progress?
Paul, do you think that your own morality is optimum or can you conceive of someone more moral than yourself—not just a being who better adheres to your current ideals, but a being with better ideals than you?
Lowly Undergrad, early societies didn’t have this idea of reducing violent death to zero—through what mechanism did they acquire this belief, given that they didn’t start out with the idea that it was “moral progress”?
I realize it’s been years, but—didn’t early societies want to encourage peace (in general, since the Hated Enemy obviously needs to be fought) and reduce violent crime? My model of early societies does, in fact, have something roughly isomorphic to “reduce violent death”, even if they don’t explicitly extrapolate this all the way to “someday, violent death should be nonexistent”—and, let’s face it, most modern societies don’t really do this either, it’s just too far away. Do you have a source for asserting otherwise? Or, if you’ve changed your mind, do you remember why you claimed this?
Wiseman, if everyone were blissed-out by direct stimulation of their pleasure center all the time, would that by definition be moral progress?
Marshall, how is your “usefulness” not isomorphic to the word “good”? Useful for what?
Lowly Undergrad, early societies didn’t have this idea of reducing violent death to zero—through what mechanism did they acquire this belief, given that they didn’t start out with the idea that it was “moral progress”?
Robin Brandt, is whatever increasing technology does to a society, moral progress by definition, or does increasing technology only tend to cause moral progress?
Tim, if we all cooperated with each other all the time, would that by definition be moral progress?
Paul, do you think that your own morality is optimum or can you conceive of someone more moral than yourself—not just a being who better adheres to your current ideals, but a being with better ideals than you?
I realize it’s been years, but—didn’t early societies want to encourage peace (in general, since the Hated Enemy obviously needs to be fought) and reduce violent crime? My model of early societies does, in fact, have something roughly isomorphic to “reduce violent death”, even if they don’t explicitly extrapolate this all the way to “someday, violent death should be nonexistent”—and, let’s face it, most modern societies don’t really do this either, it’s just too far away. Do you have a source for asserting otherwise? Or, if you’ve changed your mind, do you remember why you claimed this?