From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 03:04:33 MST
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> I've always considered the ethical constraint to be "the right conclusion
> for the right reason". In other words, it's not enough to persuade people
> of things that you believe to be true; it is only ethical if you persuade
> people of things that you believe to be true, using arguments that you
> believe to be valid.
>
I think this is overly strict. If people are persuaded of
something that is actually closer to the truth and more
beneficial to them then I think your efforts are ethical. I
think doing this is more ethical (if your ethics includes thus
benefitting others when it is within ones rational means) than
not acting at all because you can't get the point across with
the most accurate arguments that you yourself understand.
Ethics has to take in account context, including the level of
knowledge, sophistication and time constraints of all involved.
Ethics is doing what is most consistent with your values/goals
in each situation.
> The pragmatic constraint is that it is easier to persuade people of
> conclusions that they are, at that time, emotionally willing to accept,
> using arguments that they regard as valid relative to their current
> knowledge base. It is ethically questionable to begin by optimizing
> arguments for these considerations, especially since some would-be whitehats
> may not have the knowledge to prevent themselves from rationalizing invalid
> arguments as "well, I sorta believe this", or "it's not actually wrong",
> etc. Rather the pragmatic considerations *restrain* which arguments should
> actually be deployed, out of those generated by native reasoning ability
> plus the ethical constraints.
>
> The moral constraint is that someone who listens to your arguments, or
> accepts your arguments, should always end up being more
> rational/informed/ethical as a result. Thus, when speaking before an
> irrational audience, one should endeavor to teach them something about
> rationality; not to teach them all about rationality all at once, but rather
> to encourage them in a few incremental steps. If you're going to try and
> change your listeners, make sure that they are stronger, not weaker, for the
> experience.
>
What if the don't end up more rational or more informed but they
do end up much more likely to survive and thrive enough to have
the chance to become more rational and informed? Are you sure
that all things ethical and leading to a better life are
necessarily limited to what you consider rational? A lot writes
on one's working concept of "rational" in this sort of disccusion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:50 MST