From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Sun Jan 30 2005 - 04:29:20 MST
Phil Goetz wrote:
>
> It seems to me that "morality" inherently has to be
> something that goes AGAINST natural inclinations
> rather than something that is in tune with them.
> At least, "morality" as commonly used is associated
> with concepts like "self-control", "discipline",
> "self-denial", and so on. The term "morals" are
> used only for those rules we follow that we are
> tempted to break. People don't call you moral
> for eating your breakfast, or sleeping, even though
> those are essential steps in accomplishing anything.
> It has to run partly against the grain to be "moral".
If that is how you define morality, then I want no part of morality, except
insofar as it may be my natural inclination to be moral.
See also: Raymond Smullyan, "The Tao is Silent".
-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://intelligence.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT