A system can be more evil than the sum of the evil of its human parts. If you don’t account for emergent evil, you’ll end up with a useless morality where you can’t distinguish between people within human range of good/evil at all. It’s like adding a big constant to your y-axis.
Conversation
Replying to
“Evil” as a quality of humans is only useful for creating simplistic narratives. It has no predictive value and a negative understanding value.
You’re basically trying to write the script of the movie about the apocalypse
1
2
Replying to
It’s convenient shorthand for consensus net negative potentiality or something
1
1
1
Replying to
I hear you. But NNP (c) is a vector quantity and evil is scalar. Moving from human sacrifice to slavery is NNP (c) +ve, but slavery is evil per se.
1
1
Replying to
A scalar potential needs a ground reference V0. We don’t actually shift that until we find a new reachable ground. In 100y when lab-grown meat is common, meat-eating may be judged evil per-se. When artificial wombs become possible, pregnancy may become evil per se.
Which is to say I’m a moral relativist I suppose and I try not to judge the present by the standards (and new reachable ground states) of speculative futures. Even if that means the future judges me poorly.
1
2
2
Show replies

