RE: To thine ownself be true? Re: Radical Suggestions

From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 19:02:18 MDT

  • Next message: Robin Hanson: "RE: Senators Denounce Policy Analysis Markets"

    Paul Grant writes
    > Brett Paatsch writes:
    > Kevin Freels writes:
    > [Paul]
    > ..when acting on knowledge of probabilities in a
    > premptive fashion), you can't really consider ur reaction
    > moral or immoral....

    [brett] I was not meaning to say, as you seem to be here, that
    acting or anticipating the actions of others (especially
    when the actions of others are likely to be serious even
    lethal) that one is necessarily operating outside of a
    moral sphere. Quite to the contrary I was trying, perhaps,
    not very effectively, to make the point that as subjective indivduals
    *all* of our judgements must necessarily be finally self-centric,
    including our *moral* judgements.

    [brett] Therefore, it follows to me, almost as day must follow night,
    that whatever else one's moral system might incorporate, it *cannot*,
    (if it is to be consistent and to have utility in guiding our actions
    and
    serving as a basis from which we might seek to form compacts with each
    other) not incorporate the recognition that we must be honest with
    ourselves. I'm arguing that moral action is precluded, that one cannot
    be
    acting morally if one is not acting on one's own best comprehension of
    the situation.

    <me> I think we're discussing two seperate points (again!); I was merely
    stating that in my opinion, anybody who says the statement that they are
    acting morally in a pre-emptive fashion that harms others, regardless of
    the effect, is immoral; insofar as no event has occurred to justify said
    "response". In relation to your secondary point (stated in this
    letter);
    I really don't think morality has anything necessarily to do with
    self-delusion, or the acknowledgement thereof. Or rather, there is
    no truth that states necessarily you have to be honest, ergo an act of
    dishonesty (as it relates to self-delusion) does not violate any
    particularly
    great truth.

    <me>Or to put it more bluntly, sometimes self-delusion is the ticket :)
    Ever wonder why (evolutionary-speaking) we have emotions?

    [brett]Now against this point it might be argued that there
    are no circumstances where dishonesty with oneself is
    a moral matter. I conceed that this is the traditional view
    but my contention is that that traditional view is wrong, flawed, and
    lacking in utility.

    <me> fair enough, I'll bite :)

    [brett]I am arguing that only those that can commit themselves
    to hold themselves to a rational moral code are in a
    position to have the sort of maturity that is required to
    forge the sort of compacts that will best serve the
    strongest forms of cooperatives and the most extropic societies.

    <me> substitute "ethics" in for "morality" and I'ld agree;
    morality to be is something generally provided for people
    by external sources (rather than derived by said people);
    it also deals heavily with intention. Now, I *really* don't
    care what people's intentions are, just their actions. Intention
    are more of a heuristic to decide whether or not someone's
    future actions will be favorable. This discussion could all
    be simplified by people adopting a non-intention based
    system, where people are judged by their actions, and statements
    made by said people are evaluated in that context (as actions).

    [brett]I do not imagine that any of us ultimately succeeds in
    avoiding self delusion. But if the charge of hyper-rationality
    is ever a valid criticism I do not think it can be so on
    matters of morality where the individuals concerned
    acknowledge that their take on the universe is inherently
    subjective and inherently selfish.

    <me> I think there are degrees of self-delusion; I think
    more important than self-delusion is the end effect that
    self-delusion has on the person as a total system.

    [brett]It is my contention that
    if we cannot find a harmony of selfish interests we will
    not find anything but the illusion of harmony at all.

    <me> in other words, someplace where everyones needs
    are met...

    [brett]And in order for their to be a harmony of selfish interests
    their must be real recognition of the nature of oneself
    and ones needs.

    <me> or a mapping of sensory input to available physical stimulus.
    thats another possibility, sans recognition of one's own selfish
    interests. Same goes for empaths (people with highly developed
    abilities to sense what others are feeling off of physical [body,
    speech] cues). They intuitively understand people and respond
    sans a specific rational understanding of those people. There's
    no reason (any empaths out there?) to think that emotion-intuition
    is not being applied to themselves (the equivalent of reflection).

    [Brett]This is where I think it becomes important
    to acknowledge to oneself that one can be rational and
    that one is by nature social. If one does not acknowledge
    that one is social one is not (by my reckoning) being true
    to oneself and one does not have the sort of maturity
    that will enable one to be on good terms with oneself
    and to form real compacts that have a chance of being
    honored with others.

    <me>Ooooh I don't know about that :) You seem to take
    that people are by nature, social creatures. I don't
    necessarily think thats the case. Or to qualify, people are
    social by a matter of degree. Some are quite capable
    of going it alone while others would die if seperated
    from the herd. So i question ur assumption that everyone
    is social.... Its obviously a core belief in ur system, and certes,
    generally speaking, it is the case that most people are social.
    But not all.

    [brett]If there was a creature that by nature was not social in
    any sense I would grant by my notion of morality that
    that creature would have no duties to others and that
    that creature would not be acting immorally in anything
    it did to others. If one is sure that one is being
    threatened by a genuine sociopath by my moral reckoning
    one would not only be permitted to act in ones defence
    one would be morally obliged.

    <me> see now I wouldn't go that far; just because ur being
    threatened by a sociopath does not necessarily mean they
    will carry out that act; there's a whole subset of sociopaths
    that lead "normal" lives without going through the murder
    sprees that characterize their (by our definitions)
    less-successful brethern. I think thats more of a policy issue
    (to be decided upon by each individual)....

    [brett]In practise I would have some residual doubts about
    the completeness of the sociopathy of even a creature
    such as Hitler so I would not feel completely free to
    exterminate him with extreme prejudice unless I had
    made a good faith reckoning as to the nature of him
    as a threat to what I value. Then having made a
    best a rational determination of the nature of the threat
    as I could given the time and context I would feel free
    to exterminate him with exteme prejudice and I
    would expect to feel no guilt but only some misgivings
    that had I more time I might have judged better. ie.
    My concept of morality is I think in that sense
    practical. And it is extensible. If others share it,
    if they act rationally and in accordance with their selfish
     best interests as they perceive it I can (in the context)
    of this moral system have not fault them morally.

    <me> now don't u see a contradiction therein? What if
    the sociopath, or even loony person (to broaden the set),
    is merely acting to fulfill his own utility (ergo munching
    on ur spleen or the like)? I mean, just because someone
    else is "selfishly" (is their any other way?!) pursuing
    there own interests, doesn't necessarily mean ur own
    moral code should approve their own...

    [Paul]
    > Pretty much the only time u can consider something
    > moral or immoral is after the event has occurred, and
    > then, only for urself. Morality has absolutely no import
    > in a pre-emptive doctrine.

    [brett]I don't agree. By my reckoning of morality, when
    individuals agree to cooperate with each other for their
    mutual advantage (perhaps at some cost to them on
    other dimensions were they reckoning their best
    interests separately) there is a moral bond between
    them.

    <me> according to ur definition of morality :)

    [Paul]
    > Anyone that believes to the contrary has not
    > rationally examined the situation.

    [brett]To be frank, I am doubtful that the word belief can
    be validly coupled (except as crude linguistic
    shorthand for "this is my operating hypothesis") with
    a rational examination of any situation. Belief is often
    used by fairly rational people in just this short hand
    manner.

    <me> belief => a statement a rational agent holds true.

    [Brett] By the code of morality I have tried to
    describe, belief qua belief is immoral. This is because
    when one is believing one is not reasoning and when
    one is not reasoning to the route of ones selfish best
    interest one is groping with a less than optimal method.

    <me> depends on how u define it :) And certes, just because
    you believe something doesn't necessarily make it false
    (or ill-advised); classic example, I believe the sun will
    rise tomorrow morning... Of course the veracity of that
    statement will require observation tomorrow morning; but
    the belief is both advisable and statistically speaking,
    fairly certain... In other words, belief and logic
    are not necessarily at odds; it depends on how you define
    it.

    [brett]My contention is that as soon as one becomes
    a "believer" one has ceased to hold to the principle
    of to thine own self be true - unless one is incapable
    of reasoning - (or one must reach a tenatative
    conclusion based on the imperative to live and
    act in real time).

    <me> hahahaha :) re - ur last qualification :)
    well since we're all stuck in this current universe... :)

    > Generally speaking, I have no use for morality;
    > just ethics [standard api, consistently adhered to,
    > logically derived, based on reality]....

    [brett]I'm reading api as 'application programming interface'.

    <me> yuppers.

    [brett]"Generally speaking" I suspect you are unlikely to
    enjoy discussing morality and/or ethics much further
    with me ;-)

    <me> it doesn't really bother me, if thats what u're asking :)
    but I've pretty much made up my ethical system, at least
    in terms of the larger ruleset (meta-rules)...
    some of the smaller "behaviors" are data-driven
    (tit-for-tat, etc) :)

    [brett]I may make a real balls up of communicating what
    I am saying in an interesting way but I have given
    the issue of morality some thought. I think it is an
    important topic.

    <me> certes, I'll completely agree with that; morality
    (or ethics as I prefer) is a very important topic...

    omard-out

     



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 19:10:40 MDT