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.
-
-
But we dont have AI like that, so this same moral system can argue we should feed the homeless, eliminate drugs, etc all so we can be productive enough to not perish. Survival and propagation is the only "good".
-
The older I get, the more I tend toward a subjective-eye rather than a god-eye view of morality, in the sense that I believe ethics should preferentially focus on "the feeling human subject" rather than their bodies or physical existence.
-
The EA "suffering is inherently bad" stuff is the first step, but it's also obviously wrong: a life without suffering would not be "a good life." There must be a balance.
-
Personally I agree but I don't really know how to answer lol.
End of conversation
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.