I'm a moral incompletist. That is, no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure is capable of proving all truths about moral actions. Either moral systems are complete, or they are consistent. Consistency and completeness are requirements for optimization, so the idea of moral optimization is dead on arrival for me. It's simply not possible, and like the author one will drive…
You can't optimize your way to being a good person
111–120 of 173 posts
Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person
#112This whole article just feels like analysis paralysis. Maybe it's me, but I don't think being a good person really requires that much thought.
It doesn't, but some especially sadistic people want to make it so, and similarly chastise & ostracize you for not following their diktats to ( (the letter XOR the spirit) AND (the letter XNOR the spirit) ).
Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the sentiment is that it feels like theres a lot of unkindness in the world and that makes it a worse place and you can either be part of that or you can make the world a better place by striving to be kind. Thats my interpretation anyway.
It sounds bad because the root comment is priming a negative perspective of the world. They could have said: "Most people are kind. Be kind and most people will be kind back." Or something with positive intent. Instead they seem to be priming a superiority trip.
Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person
#114Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being tried as a child when you’re 17 is by no means a “given”. It’s entirely possible, even likely, that this would go to grownup court and they’d be given the full consequences. “Force” is a pretty strong word, it was barely a shove. Just enough to give themselves a head start running away. I do not in any way agree that I created a “worse” situation than a child being sent to prison. I think it is extremely naive…
> “Force” is a pretty strong word, it was barely a shove. Just enough to give themselves a head start running away. People call it “toxic empathy” not because empathy is inherently wrong, but because it leads to people such as yourself minimizing the use of force in a crime (which you admit this was) while showing selective empathy only for the perpetrator and not their future victims. > Being tried as a child when y…
> while showing selective empathy only for the perpetrator and not their future victims.
Actually that’s not what I did. I didn’t really concede them “using force”, a light shove really isn’t “force” any more than an asshole pushing his way onto the subway is “using force”, and I said in sibling comments that I would have pressed charges if I genuinely thought that there was any real risk of danger on my end.
And again, I absolutely do not concede that putting a kid through the system is automatically going to lead to better results.
> These both sounds like you’re rationalizing an emotive decision, post hoc.
I am not rationalizing a decision “post hoc”, because that was literally the decision making process that was being employed when I was given the option to press charges. You can say it was dumb, that’s fine, but it’s not “post hoc”, because it’s not “post”.
> you’re soothing your own feelings without engaging in rational analysis nor true empathy, eg, by understanding that sometimes criminals turn their lives around because they’re punished or that future victims deserve your care also.
That can happen, but that’s not usually what happens when people get put through the system. You have no reason to think that bureaucratically punishing a child is going to force them to turn their life around. You’re asserting it.
I do not agree with your characterization of my character as “toxic empathy”.
Frankly I find this line of thinking pretty tiring, with people pretending that they care about abstract “future victims”, that may or may not exist, as a means of LARPing empathy.
Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person
#116Effective altruism says otherwise
Effective Altruism is a scam. Sam Bankman Fried's guru tried to distance itself from the fraud that happened, tweeting he needed to "reflect" on what happened but... He hasn't handed back the 15 million GBP property bought in England with stolen funds donated by SBF. Now even to this day there are still funds being clawed back from the Enron scam (or at least there was still a few years ago) so that mansion may be cl…
Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “Force” is a pretty strong word, it was barely a shove. Just enough to give themselves a head start running away. People call it “toxic empathy” not because empathy is inherently wrong, but because it leads to people such as yourself minimizing the use of force in a crime (which you admit this was) while showing selective empathy only for the perpetrator and not their future victims. > Being tried as a child when y…
No, you’re making a lot of assertions here that are not founded. > while showing selective empathy only for the perpetrator and not their future victims. Actually that’s not what I did. I didn’t really concede them “using force”, a light shove really isn’t “force” any more than an asshole pushing his way onto the subway is “using force”, and I said in sibling comments that I would have pressed charges if I genuinely…
> That can happen, but that’s not usually what happens when people get put through the system.
But that’s not the relevant question, eg, you’re ignoring the fact most thieves don’t stop because someone declined to prosecute them, either. You’re holding me to standards you didn’t apply to yourself.
The relevant question is — “for serial criminals who later stopped, what caused them to?”
In many cases, being jailed does stop their repeated criminality or stop the pathway of escalation. By contrast, there’s also many people who because they’re not punished, continue to escalate until they commit a violent offense and the state is forced to jail them.
> Frankly I find this line of thinking pretty tiring, with people pretending that they care about abstract “future victims”, that may or may not exist, as a means of LARPing empathy.
We’re discussing practiced criminals who likely offended before and will again — and who were physically aggressive with their victim.
You’re accusing me of “LARPing” empathy, but you’re showing time after time you’re not engaging in empathy (either understanding the thieves nor concern about victims), but soothing your emotions. That you don’t think future victims matter or people are genuinely concerned about them speaks to your own lack of empathy — both in general (ie, you can’t imagine how the person who stole from you might harm someone else and that person might be hurt) and in particular (ie, you can’t imagine how I’d genuinely be concerned about other victims, because that’s not how you feel).
You’re the one LARPing empathy to cover for your toxic emotionally driven conduct.
Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person
#118I'm a moral incompletist. That is, no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure is capable of proving all truths about moral actions. Either moral systems are complete, or they are consistent. Consistency and completeness are requirements for optimization, so the idea of moral optimization is dead on arrival for me. It's simply not possible, and like the author one will drive…
As if there could be a complete moral framework without the power to express Peano arithmetic.
Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person
#119However I feel like something got cooked into me, and maybe even my parents, that gives me a bit of guidance here. I can't explain it but I feel like I have a foundation that is preventing me from feeling the empty nihilism that plagues a lot of folks.
Re: You can't optimize your way to being a good person
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you’re making a lot of assertions here that are not founded. > while showing selective empathy only for the perpetrator and not their future victims. Actually that’s not what I did. I didn’t really concede them “using force”, a light shove really isn’t “force” any more than an asshole pushing his way onto the subway is “using force”, and I said in sibling comments that I would have pressed charges if I genuinely…
You ignored the expected outcomes to emphasize your emotional rationalization based on “jailing a child”. That was never likely to happen, based on how US law works. For theft, even felony theft, you’re usually talking about supervised probation on a first offense — the same as felony drug offenses. There’s a whole chart of proscribed sentences based on offense and contributing factors. > That can happen, but that’s…
I still don’t consider what I have done as “toxic”. I used discretion to not press charges because I don’t think that pushing a kid through the system was going to lead to anything good.
Let’s say grant that a stolen iPhone wouldn’t lead to jail time, let’s say I am wrong about that. Even if that’s the case, if I genuinely believed that jail time was in the picture, are you saying that my decision here was “rational”?
Also, no, you’re the one LARPing. You’re inventing future victims that you do not have any reason to think exist as a means of dismissing my point.