From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 17:09:01 MST
Eliezer writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> > Eliezer writes
> >
> >>I don't think your epistemological work is done until you
> >>explain the origins of the perceived cognitive difference.
> >>Why is it that people seem to see "It is MORALLY WRONG
> >>that x!" as a different statement than "I and most people
> >>disapprove of x"?
> >
> > Because the latter statement implies only the truth, namely
> > that the speaker's and most people's *values* are violated
> > by x. By speaking of something as MORALLY WRONG an effort
> > is made to speak in the objective mode, so that what is
> > conveyed is a claim, backed by the judgment and authority
> > of the speaker, that x has a universal failing, and that
> > anyone ought to be able to see that.
> Okay. Here's the difference from my perspective: I
> disapprove of cauliflower, while murder is morally wrong.
I hope that I'm not just quibbling, but it's possible
that your apparent difficulty in coming up with a good
example is significant. Clearly, we disapprove of acts,
behaviors, or processes. (I go so far in careful discussions
to limit my disapproval to processes only.)
If we try to more carefully state your distaste of cauliflower,
we end up with statements like "Eliezer (now) disapproves of
Eliezer now ingesting cauliflower". I guess I don't have a
problem with that; I probably disapprove of the process
"Lee experiencing stomach ache" as much as you disapprove of
"Eliezer eating cauliflower". Of course, as you point out,
your tastes could change, whereas in my example, I disapprove
of anyone ever having stomach aches.
Your disapproval of murder is also almost universal, as is
mine, and as is my disapproval of people undergoing suffering.
> Given that in both cases it is undesirable that X happen to
> me, what distinguishes the two? The reason cauliflower is
> undesirable is that I don't happen to like the taste of
> cauliflower; if I model a future in which my tastes have changed so
> that I now like cauliflower, I model it as being desirable, in that
> future, that I eat cauliflower. On the other hand, I model murder as
> morally wrong completely irrespective of how I feel about it. If a future
> Eliezer...
Yes, that does seem to distinguish how you use the terms.
> Or in simpler terms, when I say that X is MORALLY WRONG, I mean that X
> seems to me to be wrong regardless of what I think about it, and the fact
> that an alternate Eliezer might be warped to think X was right makes no
> difference in that. Similarly, it seems to me that 2 + 2 = 4 whether I
> believe that or not, and the idea of being hypnotized to believe 2 + 2 = 5
> doesn't change that, nor does the fact that "2 + 2 = 4" is a cognitive
> representation somewhere in my brain.
I guess that it only remains to determine what you mean by
"X is wrong", if it is possible, that is, to say the same
thing in different words. Can you do it? That's where I
always seem to come up against a brick wall; I see one
organism---Eliezer---expounding on the nature of the universe,
and search for the referents in the discourse of Eliezer.
Some sentences, e.g. "Neutrons participate in nuclear fission"
are easy, but others like this one that has the <w-word>
are very puzzling to me. I have not been able to translate
"X is wrong" into anything more definite (or as definite)
as "the speaker disapproves of X".
> >>What is it that, for you, distinguishes that which you
> >>disapprove of with a frown, and that which many people
> >>including you band together to disapprove of with a gun?
> >
> > Good question (as are the above). That which we band
> > together against and have laws against is behavior that
> > has been found unworkable for societies by evolution.
> > That is to say, societies that condone theft or murder
> > are not fit societies beyond the very short run.
> >
> > At least, that is all that we *should* have laws against.
>
> Heh. I wanted to ask about torturing simulated versions
> of Lee Corbin running on privately owned computers, but
> as I recall, you have no problem with that.
But I *do* have a "problem" with that :-) I *strenuously*
disapprove of anyone getting tortured, and most definitely,
me! But that is not to say that I find such an activity
legally wrong, for the usual arguments about private property,
etc. I also disapprove of people being unhappy, but I wouldn't
support there being a law against it.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:19 MST