I totally agree. The questions this raises are interesting: * how can an authority arbitrate between two differing notions of goodness? * what is the border b/w "I disagree with your ethics" and "you are evil"? * what does it mean to "recover from an error" sans metaphysics?
-
-
I mostly don't see how to get from "universal complexity" to "human life and relations"
-
Something like: Humans are the highest expression of natural complexity, take that as good, so human life and relations should be maintained. Not saying it's precise, but it's good enough to recognize "degeneracy" like child sex abuse.
-
I don’t know if this works, since I could build Rube Goldberg machines of arbitrary complexity, more complex than any human, and then in this model, they would have more moral value than humans
-
That's part of why it's imprecise, because complexity is not standardized. How many humans equal one of your Rube Goldberg's? n/a
-
OTOH child sexual abuse seems totally unrelated to universal complexity
-
Inductive reasoning: Sex abuse leads to trauma, addiction, therefore a less a productive society. A meteor might smash Earth in 300 years. Our preparation (survival) may be a function of how much sex abuse went unchecked. Thus, sex abuse is contrary to universal complexity.
-
Point of my example is that this moral framework can consistently judge what is "evil". Striving for "good" is a matter of accumulating complexity (or technocapital?), the end justifying the means. Competitors and natural cataclysms set the stage; adapt or die.
-
This puts morality on non-relativistic grounds. In a sense, "god" is the force of natural selection - the final judge, the wages of sin being death.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.