Morality limits what people can do. Bad people still have moral theories they cannot help but follow. And these aren't arbitrary. They can be understood (and thus incorporated into strategies for dealing with them).
-
Show this thread
-
Morality also defines the limit of what will work in reality. Immoral stuff is less effective.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
morality = "what to do next" It's a bit like the space of good action where 'good' = addresses more problems (of ANY kind) —Or rather: it includes that. Morality can't be incompatible with our best ideas about tactics, strategy, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
There are no trade-offs between the truest ideas. Problems are soluble. Including apparent incompatibilities. Reality is consistent and coherent. Solutions exist in reality.
3 replies 2 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @reasonisfun
Everyone has an ethic (a pattern of how they behave), just as everyone has a diet (a pattern of what they eat). Colloquially, people say “a diet” when they mean a *restrictive* diet, because that’s the context that’s most salient.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @reasonisfun
But the normative has to be a special case of the descriptive. “You should eat this (if you want that outcome)” is a restatement of “this diet causes that outcome.” Same with ethics.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @reasonisfun
I’ve tried to come up with a model of ethics that *isn’t* contiguous with decision theory, and that matches the common intuition that “good people” and “effective/useful people” are different or even disjoint. But I’ve never found a coherent explicit structure!
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I think Simone Weil might have had one, but unfortunately Gravity and Grace is so epigrammatic it’s hard to extract the plain meaning.
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.