That’s a decent take. But how do we account for people that are not most effectively modeled as agents with goals? Deontologists for example, can be evil even if their (alleged) preferences entirely match mine.
You’re talking about people who, when acting in a way that they themselves morally endorse, do not pursue the exact same goals you yourself value? In that case, there are few people on Less Wrong who aren’t evilwedrifid, much fewer (by proportion) people in your culture who aren’t evilwedrifid, and hardly anyone at all in the world who isn’t evilwedrifid. I’m not commenting on your own values, wedrifid; practically any two people will disagree about something.
Even if everyone understood your technical usage of “evil”, it wouldn’t convey much information.
What’s a technical definition of “evil”, then? I would say something about incompatible higher goals, but I’d find your take interesting.
That’s a decent take. But how do we account for people that are not most effectively modeled as agents with goals? Deontologists for example, can be evil even if their (alleged) preferences entirely match mine.
You’re talking about people who, when acting in a way that they themselves morally endorse, do not pursue the exact same goals you yourself value? In that case, there are few people on Less Wrong who aren’t evilwedrifid, much fewer (by proportion) people in your culture who aren’t evilwedrifid, and hardly anyone at all in the world who isn’t evilwedrifid. I’m not commenting on your own values, wedrifid; practically any two people will disagree about something.
Even if everyone understood your technical usage of “evil”, it wouldn’t convey much information.