From: Patrick Crenshaw (patrick.crenshaw@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Jan 30 2005 - 21:07:33 MST
> Did I understand your words correctly?
>
> - Jef
>
>
Almost. What I meant was that what people consider right or wrong can
be given by a value function. People think that something is the best
thing to do when it maximizes their pet value function. For a given
moral system that is consistent, I can give you a value function.
Then I started blathering on about the properties that a physically
realizable value function would have. What I was trying to say was
that there is a class of value functions that are objective, and that
the "correct" morality would use a value function in this class.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT