fozz
1yr ago
I understand the is/ought distinction, thank you.
Then why do you keep saying things that prove otherwise?
I am pointing out that the morality you describe is so foreign to most humans that calling it “obvious” is presumptuous at best.
It's obvious in the way I said it was:
Me: It's only because conscious experience exists that morality exists; it's only by rationally thinking through the implication of this that you can participate in morality. The moral way of assessing value is by measuring the capacity to suffer, or the other end, experience happiness/flourishing. And it's when you do that you realize there is no (unselfish) basis to place a higher value on anyone. You'll see that it's only your selfishness that blinds you to this simple truth.
If you can't see it's obvious that all people are of the same value, it's just selfishness. Like, you've been deluded into thinking your Self is privileged, and other people are privileged because of their proximity to your Self. This is obviously immoral, enforced by evolution & culture.
Again, if you had to choose to either save a starving child's life, or have a high thread count duvet cover and heated seats, and you choose the luxuries instead of the child's life and welfare, then you are a selfish coward. And that is what you (and I) are doing. Not theoretically. We're actually choosing to do it in the real, concrete world.
I’m sure you can find examples of principled equal-opportunity altruists, though I suspect many historical examples were motivated by religious and ascetic principles somewhat misaligned with yours. I said statistically zero.
I won't quibble about numbers here. My point was only that it's not at all impossible. But it's certainly not popular.
Love it. Probably the best example, and it's good to examine these limit cases.
I agree you have a special moral relationship to your children, as you made the choice to give them consciousness.
I'm an antinatalist, so I don't think we should have children. Having children is creating the (near certain) potential for (significant) suffering without the consent of the sufferer.
Apart from your unique responsibility to them because you chose to give them consciousness, your children are not owed any more of your moral "duty" than any other child. That you feel you owe them more is just a result of biology and culture.
There is no moral difference between your child and some child on the other side of the globe. Both are having a conscious experience and are capable of suffering & happiness.
If you want to participate in morality, which is engaging in the process of having positive effects on the conscious experiences of others, then you'll recognize privileging family and friends over strangers, even enemies, is nothing more than an evolutionary survival strategy with a little fondness of familiarity on top. It's utterly Self-centered, amoral, and leads to many problems.
If you disagree, and you’d like to change my mind, you could chill with calling everyone selfish cowards blind to your obvious correctness.
I'm a selfish coward. That's the plain language for what I am based on what I'm doing.
I should give my resources, at least above subsistence, to save the lives of starving children. That is the correct moral action.
I am a coward for failing to do so. That is, I am too scared to proceed with what I have reasoned is morally right.
And my fear is based on my desire to preserve the Self. I am selfish. Obsessed with Self, to the point I will let children starve rather than deny my Self.
Using less plain and direct language is just a tactic people use to preserve their delusions.
It's lying.
I don't think the FTX/SBF debacle relates to EA at all.
EA is a set of ethical arguments.
That some guy within the sphere of people associated with EA might be greedy/stupid was already in my model.
It doesn't have the slightest effect on the ethical arguments.
fozz
1yr ago
I deny that human morality is math at all. People are not indistinguishable, interchangeable, widgets. The essence of humanity is sociability - our particular relationships and cooperation with each other. Your cold math at best ignores it, and at worst denigrates it as pernicious. That's a recipe for trouble.
Ha. You feel attacked. I get it. :)
You're placing a higher value on the lives of some people due to their proximity to you. This is because you are selfish, by nature. Reputation, reciprocation, kin selection, etc. These are all "is" considerations. (It's cool we all feel it.)
It's only because conscious experience exists that morality exists; it's only by rationally thinking through the implication of this that you can participate in morality. The moral way of assessing value is by measuring the capacity to suffer, or the other end, experience happiness/flourishing. And it's when you do that you realize there is no (unselfish) basis to place a higher value on anyone. You'll see that it's only your selfishness that blinds you to this simple truth.
A man you've never met in Kenya is of equal moral value to your father. This sentence flies in the face of everything we feel, but it's obviously morally true.
This completely at odds with this:
3 million children really, actually die of starvation each year. Real children. You can literally, truly, concretely, actually save a number of their lives. Say, 10 lives. Just by forgoing insanely lavish luxuries that we all treat "middle class" in the West. You wouldn't even have to forfeit your life, just a bunch of your stuff.
Saying "it's not my moral duty" makes no sense. No one is going to assign this duty to you. Reason makes your "duty" self-evident.
If you want to participate in morality, you need to acknowledge "a person’s proximity to me does not affect their moral value" as you did above, and then engage in the process of treating them as if they have the same moral value as you. By keeping them from suffering, aiding their happiness, etc. It's your "duty."
If you acknowledge "a person’s proximity to me does not affect their moral value," and yet do not make the appropriate changes to act on what you know, then you are a hypocrite, and a selfish coward.
I am a hypocrite, and a selfish coward too.
Acknowledging this is useful if it leads to action.
More options
Context Copy link