No real framework to speak of. Hanson’s efficiency criterion appeals to me as a sort of baseline morality. It’s hard to imagine a better first-order attack on the problem than “everyone should get as much of what they want as possible”, but of course one can imagine an endless stream of counter-examples and refinements. I presumably have most standard human “pull the child off the tracks” sorts of preferences.
I’m not sure I know what you’re looking for. Unusual moral beliefs or ethical injuctions? I think lying is simultaneously
Despicable by default
Easily justified in the right context
Usually unpleasant to perform even when feeling justified in doing so, but occasionally quite enjoyable
I’m not sure what to do with that as stated at all, I’m afraid. But “as possible” seems like a load-bearing phrase in the sentence “everyone should get as much of what they want as possible”, because this isn’t literally possible for everyone simultaneously (two people could simultaneously desire the same thing, such that it is possible that either of them get it), and you have to have some kind of mechanism to balance contradictory desires. What mechanism looks right to you?
Agreed, “as possible” is quite heavy, as is “everyone”. But it at least slightly refines the question “what’s right?” to “what’s fair?”. Which is still a huge question.
The quasi-literal answer to your question is: a voronoi diagram. It looks right—I don’t quite know what it means in practice, though.
In general, the further a situation is from my baseline intuitions concerning fairness and respect for apparent volition, the weaker my moral apprehension of it is. Life is full of trade-offs of wildly varying importance and difficulty. I’d be suspicious of any short account of them.
No real framework to speak of. Hanson’s efficiency criterion appeals to me as a sort of baseline morality. It’s hard to imagine a better first-order attack on the problem than “everyone should get as much of what they want as possible”, but of course one can imagine an endless stream of counter-examples and refinements. I presumably have most standard human “pull the child off the tracks” sorts of preferences.
I’m not sure I know what you’re looking for. Unusual moral beliefs or ethical injuctions? I think lying is simultaneously
Despicable by default
Easily justified in the right context
Usually unpleasant to perform even when feeling justified in doing so, but occasionally quite enjoyable
if that helps.
I’m not sure what to do with that as stated at all, I’m afraid. But “as possible” seems like a load-bearing phrase in the sentence “everyone should get as much of what they want as possible”, because this isn’t literally possible for everyone simultaneously (two people could simultaneously desire the same thing, such that it is possible that either of them get it), and you have to have some kind of mechanism to balance contradictory desires. What mechanism looks right to you?
Agreed, “as possible” is quite heavy, as is “everyone”. But it at least slightly refines the question “what’s right?” to “what’s fair?”. Which is still a huge question.
The quasi-literal answer to your question is: a voronoi diagram. It looks right—I don’t quite know what it means in practice, though.
In general, the further a situation is from my baseline intuitions concerning fairness and respect for apparent volition, the weaker my moral apprehension of it is. Life is full of trade-offs of wildly varying importance and difficulty. I’d be suspicious of any short account of them.