Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#71

Post by Iv »

ukj wrote: post #62
Iv wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so, if it is done properly. For instance you want a human life to be worth more but the only way for that to happen is to actually spend more to save human lives, which makes the value of life increase.

What is your standard for "properness" ?

In this context, "that can't be tricked the way you propose". If you accurately measure the value human society puts on life (that is, avoiding the bias of, e.g. considering only a part of the population that may be privileged) then your only way to trick the metric is by actually increasing the value of human lives.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#72

Post by Iv »

ukj wrote: post #63
Iv wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goodhart's law/McNamara fallacy: when you put value in a measure, you create incentives to trick it. Here is aa equivalent statement, as terse and clearer, than the comment you made above.

So, would that same reasoning apply to putting value in human lives? Is that an incentive to trick the measurement?

Not really. I am proposing a theoretical solution to a philosophical problem. You are the one jumping to imagining how it could be implemented in a biased way.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#73

Post by ukj »

Iv wrote: post #71
ukj wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your standard for "properness" ?

In this context, "that can't be tricked the way you propose". If you accurately measure the value human society puts on life (that is, avoiding the bias of, e.g. considering only a part of the population that may be privileged) then your only way to trick the metric is by actually increasing the value of human lives.

What is your standard for "accuracy" ?

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#74

Post by ukj »

Iv wrote: post #72
ukj wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, would that same reasoning apply to putting value in human lives? Is that an incentive to trick the measurement?

Not really. I am proposing a theoretical solution to a philosophical problem. You are the one jumping to imagining how it could be implemented in a biased way.

I am not doing any of that. I am just using your own argument against you.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#75

Post by tasty_freeze »

I tried reading "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis on the strong recommendation of a friend.

Its core claim is that while many of our ideals of morality shift over time, some are absolute and transcend place and time, and therefore they must have been created by something outside of the universe. That claim occupies only the first few pages, and from there he attempts to further conclude that not only is there something, it is specifically the Christian god.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#76

Post by Sebb767 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #75

I tried reading "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis on the strong recommendation of a friend. Its core claim is that while many of our ideals of morality shift over time, some are absolute and transcend place and time, and therefore they must have been created by something outside of the universe. That claim occupies only the first few pages, and from there he attempts to further conclude that not only is there something…

> some are absolute and transcend place and time

Which ones? I honestly can't think of any of the top of my head for which I wouldn't know a civilization which didn't honor them.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#77

Post by bobthechef »

bawolff wrote: post #15

Maybe im missing it, but the argument seems to be morality is objective because everyone thinks it is. How is that not begging the question? Then there are a bunch of pithy lines, which the author seems to treat as obvious in context revelations, but to me seem to utterly lack evidence/argument. > "No matter how the universe had turned out, two plus two would equal four and it would have been wrong to torture people…

> Maybe im missing it, but the argument seems to be morality is objective because everyone thinks it is. How is that not begging the question?

Let's substitute morality with "facts".

"Maybe I'm missing it, but the argument seems to be that facts are objective because everyone things they are. How is that not begging the question?"

Begging the question only applies to demonstrable truths, not evident or self-evident truths. We do not and cannot and need not demonstrate first principles. The reality of morality is obvious. The only way you can doubt it is through intentional or habitual skepticism, i.e., through some kind of philosophical FUD. I can doubt the existence of my left hand, but it would be insane for me to do so and there would be no way for me to recover my acceptance of the existence of my left hand apart from abandoning my doubt because my doubt was never rational in the first place, only willed arbitrarily.

That doesn't mean there isn't a way to account for morality.

Now, I reject panpsychism because panpsychism is really just a rehashing of Cartesian dualism masquerading as something new. However, it might be a welcome development and provisional stepping stone toward a recovery of telos. Once we finally abandon the stupid Cartesian view of matter we've been enslaved to for 400 years, we can recover the only real understanding of the basis for morality: teleology and the natural law.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#78

Post by bobthechef »

roenxi wrote: post #35
TeMPOraL wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, doesn't make sense. I prefer a simpler argument for why there is a subset of morality that's universal for (vast majority of) humans: argument from shared brain architecture. We're essentially running the same wetware under the hood, at least on the time scales of human civilization. So while the universe doesn't necessarily privilege a set of values, human brains are . And that's all that really matters (until…

There is an even simpler explanation: some moral principles push people towards a game-theoretic optimum, so evolution selects for it. Eg, a society that allows random murders will be at a staggering disadvantage. By magic, most (all?) societies have strong moral arguments against murder. Ditto honesty - honest societies have structural advantages. Any cooperative species will have something that looks like morality.…

"Optimum" is a moral notion. You're begging the question.

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#79

Post by Iv »

ukj wrote: post #73
Iv wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context, "that can't be tricked the way you propose". If you accurately measure the value human society puts on life (that is, avoiding the bias of, e.g. considering only a part of the population that may be privileged) then your only way to trick the metric is by actually increasing the value of human lives.

What is your standard for "accuracy" ?

Why do every "philosophical" debate ends up with "let's play semantic and never address the question being actually debated?"

Philosophy is about answering real, deep questions, not about trying to find smart ways to pretend your interlocutor is confusing when defining a field that is characterized by the vagueness of the concepts it explores.

Either make an effort to understand what your interlocutor mean or explicit why the ambiguity your perceive is relevant.

I am arguing that morality is something subjective, created by human society, but that can therefore be measured with the tools of human sciences, like economics.

You are arguing that an improper way to measure it would lead to bad outcomes, which I agree with but I fail to see how it addresses the question. Do you think a proper way to measure it is impossible (and the meaning for "proper" here, is, OBVIOUSLY, "that does not lead to the outcomes you outline")? If so can you explain why you think so?

Re: The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

#80

Post by [deleted] »

fenomas wrote: post #3

> But the problem for .. anyone who tries to ground moral truth in the natural world, is that moral truths, like mathematical truths, are necessarily true, which means that it’s impossible for them to be false. What a bizarre argument. Mathematical truths are defined to be true -- entirely the opposite of what the author is trying to claim about moral truths, so this is about as absurd a comparison as one could make.…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN