From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Fri Feb 20 2004 - 15:11:38 MST
Ben wrote:
> Rafal,
>
> If I understand you correctly, you now seem to be saying something
> like
>
> "Create goals, and rules that, if followed, will lead to the
> achievement of these goals"
>
> or
>
> "Create goals, and rules that, if followed, will lead to the
> achievement of these goals, with as few side-effects as possible."
>
> I understand that the goals and rules are typically presented in a
> combined format rather than separately, but I'm not sure it does harm
> to separate them, and it provides some conceptual simplification.
>
> I agree that these statements are more meta-ethical than your previous
> proposal, which in this language was basically like
>
> "Create goal-rule systems that will be accepted"
>
> Your new statement is indeed more general, and is inclusive of the
> previous one. "Will be accepted" seems to add a very substantial
> additional condition to your new, very abstract meta-ethic.
>
> Because, consider the "ethical" system:
>
> DESTROY ALL LIVING BEINGS BY
> 1) FIRST STUDYING ALL OTHER LIVING BEINGS SCIENTIFICALLY TO DETERMINE
> HOW TO KILL THEM MOST EFFECTIVELY AND AT LOWEST RISK, AND THEN
> KILLING THEM 2) FINALLY, KILLING ONESELF
>
> This posits a goal and also some rules for how to achieve the goal.
> It is rational and consistent. It obeys your new, more abstract
> meta-ethic.
>
> However, in practice, it fails your former, more concrete
> almost-meta-ethic, because at least among MOST OF the sentient beings
> I know, it is unlikely to be accepted. (Now and then various
> psychopaths have of course accepted this "ethic").
>
> So, to me, by further abstracting your meta-ethic, you have moved from
>
> -- a very abstract formulation of "the good" ["Create goal-rule
> systems that will be accepted"]
>
> to
>
> -- a very abstract formulation of the general process of goal-seeking
>
>
> Seeking the good is a special case of goal-seeking in general....
>
> I think your previous formulation succeeded in getting about as
> abstract as "ethics" can get. Your new formulation is *so* abstract
> it seems more "meta" than "ethical" ;-)
>
### I agree with your points. Indeed, in evaluation of an ethical system, a
whole gamut of rules should be used.
It's reasonable to start with the most meta-ethical rules of rationality,
the totally impersonal and subject-independent forms of thought we all share
(except when under the influence of mind-altering substances and the like),
rejecting incoherent systems, but not differentiating between the system you
mention above and systems more congenial to humans.
Subsequently, an individual's emotional presets come into play, like a
Bayesian prior, rejecting systems based on their outcomes or content, to fit
with the individual's wishes (at least with some of them). This is where the
usual devotion to one's own survival comes into play, and objectivity can no
longer be sustained. Then there are lower-level preferences, emotional
foibles and tastes.
And finally, the ethical system (its representation in the prefrontal
cortex) itself acts on the remaining cortex, adjusting emotional responses,
and even influencing habits of thought and notions of rationality, thus
closing the circle (or many-stranded braid) of recursive self-modification.
As long as there are new neurons generated in your subventricular zone,
prepare to be surprised with what happens in your own mind. As for myself, I
could have hardly imagined becoming who I am now, compared to who I was a
scant 25 years ago. An enemy of the International Space Station, budding
oenophile, and anti-environmentalist anti-democrat.... 'Nuff said.
Rafal
PS. Please do not take my last sentence above as bait for starting
non-sl4-level exchanges :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT