Why should there be a “correct” solution for ethical reasoning? Is there a normative level regarding which color is the best?
Well, obviously this wouldn’t hold for, say, paperclippers … but while I suspect you may disagree, most people seem to think human ethics are not mutually contradictory and are, in fact, part of the psychological unity of humankind (most include caveats for psychopaths, political enemies, and those possessed by demons.)
Imagine forcing a programmer to treat all incoming data with the exact same rule.
Such a (highly complex) rule is known as a “program”.
but while I suspect you may disagree, most people seem to think human ethics are not mutually contradictory and are, in fact, part of the psychological unity of humankind (most include caveats for psychopaths, political enemies, and those possessed by demons.)
As a bonus, the exception class of “enemies” and “immoral monsters” tends to be contrived to include anyone who has a sufficient degree of difference in ethical preferences. All True humans are ethically united...
I’m torn between grinning at how marvelously well-contrived it is on evolution’s part and frustrated that, y’know, I have to live here, and I keep stepping in the mindkill.
Of course, I’ll note they’re usually wrong. Except about some of the psychopaths, I suppose, though even they seem to contain bits of it if I understand correctly.
In context here, a “rule” is shorthand for a general rule, not for any sort of algorithm whatsoever. A rule that describes a specific case by name is not a general rule.
most people seem to think human ethics are not mutually contradictory
Thought experiment: Go up to a random person and find out how they avoid the Repugnant Conclusion. Repeat with some other famous ethical paradoxes. Even if some of those have solutions, you can bet the average person 1) won’t have thought about them, and 2) won’t be able to come up with a solution that holds up to examination.
Most people have not thought about enough marginal cases involving human ethics to be able to determine whether human ethics is mutually contradictory.
In context here, a “rule” is shorthand for a general rule, not for any sort of algorithm whatsoever. A rule that describes a specific case by name is not a general rule.
That was mostly a joke :)
(My point, if you could call it such, was that morality need only be consistent, not simple—although most special cases turn out to be caused by bias, rather than actual special cases, so it was a rather weak point. And, apparently, a rather weak joke.)
Thought experiment: Go up to a random person and find out how they avoid the Repugnant Conclusion. Repeat with some other famous ethical paradoxes. Even if some of those have solutions, you can bet the average person 1) won’t have thought about them, and 2) won’t be able to come up with a solution that holds up to examination.
And yet, funnily enough,most people agree on most things, and the marginal cases are not unique for every person. Ethics, as far as I can tell, is a part of the psychological unity of mankind.
That said, there is the much more worrying prospect that these common values could be internally incoherent, but we seem to have intuitions for resolving conflicts between lower-level intuitions and I think—hope—it all works out in the end.
(Kawoomba has stated that he considers it ethical for a parent to destroy the earth rather than risk their family, though, so perhaps I’m being overly generous in this regard. pulls face)
Well, obviously this wouldn’t hold for, say, paperclippers … but while I suspect you may disagree, most people seem to think human ethics are not mutually contradictory and are, in fact, part of the psychological unity of humankind (most include caveats for psychopaths, political enemies, and those possessed by demons.)
Such a (highly complex) rule is known as a “program”.
As a bonus, the exception class of “enemies” and “immoral monsters” tends to be contrived to include anyone who has a sufficient degree of difference in ethical preferences. All True humans are ethically united...
I’m torn between grinning at how marvelously well-contrived it is on evolution’s part and frustrated that, y’know, I have to live here, and I keep stepping in the mindkill.
Of course, I’ll note they’re usually wrong. Except about some of the psychopaths, I suppose, though even they seem to contain bits of it if I understand correctly.
In context here, a “rule” is shorthand for a general rule, not for any sort of algorithm whatsoever. A rule that describes a specific case by name is not a general rule.
Thought experiment: Go up to a random person and find out how they avoid the Repugnant Conclusion. Repeat with some other famous ethical paradoxes. Even if some of those have solutions, you can bet the average person 1) won’t have thought about them, and 2) won’t be able to come up with a solution that holds up to examination.
Most people have not thought about enough marginal cases involving human ethics to be able to determine whether human ethics is mutually contradictory.
That was mostly a joke :)
(My point, if you could call it such, was that morality need only be consistent, not simple—although most special cases turn out to be caused by bias, rather than actual special cases, so it was a rather weak point. And, apparently, a rather weak joke.)
And yet, funnily enough,most people agree on most things, and the marginal cases are not unique for every person. Ethics, as far as I can tell, is a part of the psychological unity of mankind.
That said, there is the much more worrying prospect that these common values could be internally incoherent, but we seem to have intuitions for resolving conflicts between lower-level intuitions and I think—hope—it all works out in the end.
(Kawoomba has stated that he considers it ethical for a parent to destroy the earth rather than risk their family, though, so perhaps I’m being overly generous in this regard. pulls face)