i mean, both probably have to say what persons are, but egoists additionally have to say which person is the self. across time and change
and once you realize this, valuing yourself more because you happen to be in the same brain no longer seems as appealing
-
-
my brain feels you exist less when you're far away. but my brain is just wrong on that point. (modulo weird simulation measure stuff)
-
or maybe my brain doesn't distinguish between existence and importance-given-existence. it uses heuristics interpretable both ways
-
at times when i grok that what it is like to me be is what it is like to be you, an egoistic component to morality is no longer common sense
-
at those times, i think i want you to have a good-life-according-to-me no less than i want me to have a good-life-according-to-me
-
or maybe just not much less. but you need a huge egoism/groupism multiplication factor to get common sense back
-
at least if you accept linear aggregation, which is another somewhat separate source of possible objections
-
i don't necessarily accept linear aggregation, but i don't think it's broken in the simple ways that people say it is, either
-
nonlinear aggregation is *weird*. "how much should i care about this person? best figure out who else there is in the whole universe first"
-
i haven't really seen people successfully reduce common sense to a bunch of principles
-
you can successfully say "screw any principles, whatever i feel like doing is correct"
-
but then what if you run into a decision where you feel that it's really important but you don't have clear feelings about what's correct
-
i run into decisions like that all the time
-
also i don't want to screw principles. it's not what i want, stop telling me what i want
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.