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.
-
Show 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 -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @reasonisfun
Ethics is particular, applied decision theory/game theory. Obviously they have to be related
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijicUK @reasonisfun
It’s not obvious how to describe Christianity in that framework. (I’ve made a few stabs, none of which satisfy me.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @reasonisfun
Monotheistic religions with an afterlife (Heaven/Hell) where the just are rewarded and the evil are punished are fairly obviously inspired by game theory consdierations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijicUK @reasonisfun
That’s really not the aspect I mean.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin @reasonisfun
"the meek shall inherit the earth" - everyone had to become more submissive and live in much bigger hierarchies than we are built for (civilization vs tribe, farmer vs forager). So a religion with an aspect of comforting low-status people became popular.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RokoMijicUK @reasonisfun
That's a strategic explanation for the popularity of Christianity, not a strategic *interpretation* of Christianity as saying a true thing about the world. (Which might be the best you can do, of course, if Christianity is not true. I'm not a Christian myself.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 3 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.