Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] In defense of moral standards (Was: In defense of moral relativism)

From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:03:00 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
> Giu1io Prisco is convinced we should have no convictions. His standard is that
> we should have no standards.  
> 
> He makes two arguments: first, he reasons that moral reasoning is unnecessary;
> second, that adherence to moral standards, being a person of character and
> conviction, always leads to mass-murder and atrocity. In other words, argues
> that moral relativism is good, (or, at least, acceptable) and that moral
> standards are bad. 

It was a tad worse than that.  I believe Giulio also said that believing in an 
external, objective reality leads to mass-murder and atrocity.

But as that is only Giulio's mere personal opinion, bearing no relation to 
(smirk smirk) any actual "reality" (if indeed such a concept is even coherent) 
we may safely ignore it.

(Though that refutation does not actually follow.  Giulio did not assert that 
reality was not objective; he merely said that entertaining the notion leads 
to homicide.  This assertion has no evidential bearing on whether reality is 
objective.)

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Jeff Medina <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 18:05:59 -0400

> to homicide.  This assertion has no evidential bearing on whether reality is

Could you point out where he said this? Because what I read was that
*morality* was not objective.

Aside: This does not imply that the moral beliefs of a particular
individual at a particular time could not be objectively determined;
quite the contrary, given the supervenience of mental states on
objective physical reality, including those mental states with moral
content.

He also didn't say that the notion of objective reality leads to
homicide. He said that the notion of objective, infallibilist moral
dogma leads to homicide, and he said this based on inductive inference
from the laundry list of horrible events in human history in which
groups convinced they had ascertained objective moral knowledge saw
fit to murder those who disagreed or were otherwise undesirable
according to the moral 'axioms' of each respective group.

Jeff

---

From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:35:47 -0700

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
 >
 > Eliezer asks, "How do you rally people to fight for the idea that
 > nothing is worth fighting for?". But moral relativism does not say
 > that nothing is worth fighting for. It simply acknowledges that "worth
 > fighting for" is a value judgment which depends on many factors and
 > may vary according to circumstances. You still fight for your ideas,
 > but acknowledging that you are fighting for your ideas and not for The
 > Truth. Then perhaps you can keep things in perspective and avoid
 > committing atrocities in defense of your ideas.
 >
 > This is, indeed, the main reason why I don't like the very concepts of
 > absolute truth, or objective morality: the "I Am The Champion Of The
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 > Truth" stance leads to gassing people for thinking different.

---

From: Jeff Medina <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 19:15:38 -0400

1. The context of the quote you provided indicates he's talking about
morality. E.g., "moral relativism does not say [...]"; "It [moral
relativism] simply acknowledges [...]"; "I don't like the very
concepts of absolute truth, or objective morality" (contrast this last
snippet with the multiple references to "absolute or objective
morality" in earlier posts by various discussion participants... but
see 2 for an alternative if you don't feel like interpreting 'absolute
truth' as 'absolute moral truth' based on the context.)

2. Opposition to absolute truth, on at least one plausible reading
(epistemological, rather than metaphysical), is something you yourself
readily and vigorously defend. It is the equivalent of assigning a
probability or credence of 1 to a proposition, and known variously by
such terms as "epistemological infallibilism," "faith," and "unbridled
stupidity."
While it's possible the alternative reading (that Giulio is opposing
the idea of absolute metaphysical truth, or absolute physical reality)
is what was meant, that seems such an obvious intellectual error to me
that, based on Giulio's evidenced comprehension of other issues in the
past, I give him the benefit of the doubt as to which interpretation
he intended.

-- 
Jeffrey A. Medina
Research Fellow, Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies:
http://www.ieet.org/
Volunteer Coordinator, Singularity Institute for Artificial
Intelligence: http://www.singinst.org/
Department of Philosophy, Birkbeck College, University of London:
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/phil/
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Joseph Bloch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 19:35:31 -0400

Not going to get involved in this directly myself, but here's a terrific 
and timely article from the NY Observer on this very subject...

http://www.observer.com/pages/observer.asp

Joseph

Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": 
http://www.humanenhancement.com
New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta
PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/27/05)

---

From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 07:57:22 +0200

Not quite. Jeff's interpretation is correct: I am only challenging the
notion of external, objective *morality*. You may have been misled by
my using the term "Truth" in the sentence quoted below. I am using it
as shorthand for "Moral Truth".
I challenge the notion of external, objective morality because 1) it
cannnot have any positive effect (demonstration: I try to be kind to
children anyway without basing it on metaphysics), and 2) it can have
strong negative effects (demonstration: read the first history book
that you find).
As far as the notion of external, objective reality is concerned, I do
not doubt its usefulness and core validity (even if I think it may be
a bit more complex than we currently appreciate). Regarding *specific
statements* on external reality (e.g. the photon has zero mass, the
Earth is flat, the temperature of the background microwave radiation
is approximately 3K, the Moon is made of Emmenthal cheese, etc.), I
follow the classic scientific method and consider them open to
experimental confirmation or refutation. So I think a scientist is
free to consider hypothesis and try to test them experimentally, but
not free to murder fellow scientists who think differently.
G.

---

From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 09:05:47 -0700

Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> a bit more complex than we currently appreciate).

Okay.  Sorry, then.