From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Sat Jul 19 2003 - 15:20:53 MDT
On 7/19/2003, Spike wrote:
> > http://psych.unm.edu/faculty/moral_vision.htm
> > There's something broken about this idea, but its hard to say
> > exactly what it is...
>
>I can say exactly what it is. Miller presumes
>everyone's sense of ethics matches his own. ...
This is a serious issue with ethical analysis in general. Most ethical
discussions presume that the answer to each dispute is a matter of fact,
not values, in the sense that with enough discussion and analysis and
rationality everyone would eventually agree on the same answer. If this is
not true, and each person/agent would arrive at a different ethics with
enough discussion/analysis/rationality, then ethics doesn't seem the best
framework for social analysis. Perhaps better is a "deal making"
framework, where we look for win/win deals that can give each party to a
negotiation as much as possible of what they want, including whatever
ethics they want to achieve.
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 19 2003 - 21:53:26 MDT