undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjanto4y ago0 comments

Because when we get the opposite, our own behaviour has ultimately driven us into the ground and we end up in hell or dead.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

marginalia_nu4y ago· 3 in thread

Right, but some might consider the other end of the spectrum as also bad.

Extremely stable societies are often marked by low social mobility and oppressive social mores, yet they fulfill every check mark according to your definition of good. It would also deem the emancipation of slaves an evil deed, since it disrupts a stable pattern of social order that's extended for a long stretch of time.

I don't know if I would deem something like ancient egypt, which had a social order that persisted largely unchanged for several thousand years, one of the most stable societies known in history (also an oppressive theocracy), I don't know if that is my idea of good.

jantoOP4y ago

Either too much chaos or too much order are indeed failure conditions that appear in our history/stories/myths. So I'd not go to either extreme of that spectrum.

Merely persisting is not sufficient for something to be moral, but it is a necessary requirement. We need principles on how to behave in repeated interactions and situations over long periods, or bad things will eventually happen. That's part of the purpose of moral truths you were raising a question about.

I'd just point out that ancient Egypt had developed moral-sensemaking technology that were state of the art at the time. It's the best we as humans could do to live in a large ecosystem and we're standing on their shoulders. It's not surprising that we would find fault.

DarylZero4y ago

The pure game theory idea doesn't work because it won't be internally consistent -- we understand morality isn't supposed to vary from person to person depending on how powerful their social position is.

1 more reply

DarylZero4y ago

Apply Rawls veil of ignorance.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

marginalia_nu4y ago· 3 in thread

Right, but some might consider the other end of the spectrum as also bad.

Extremely stable societies are often marked by low social mobility and oppressive social mores, yet they fulfill every check mark according to your definition of good. It would also deem the emancipation of slaves an evil deed, since it disrupts a stable pattern of social order that's extended for a long stretch of time.

I don't know if I would deem something like ancient egypt, which had a social order that persisted largely unchanged for several thousand years, one of the most stable societies known in history (also an oppressive theocracy), I don't know if that is my idea of good.

jantoOP4y ago

Either too much chaos or too much order are indeed failure conditions that appear in our history/stories/myths. So I'd not go to either extreme of that spectrum.

Merely persisting is not sufficient for something to be moral, but it is a necessary requirement. We need principles on how to behave in repeated interactions and situations over long periods, or bad things will eventually happen. That's part of the purpose of moral truths you were raising a question about.

I'd just point out that ancient Egypt had developed moral-sensemaking technology that were state of the art at the time. It's the best we as humans could do to live in a large ecosystem and we're standing on their shoulders. It's not surprising that we would find fault.

DarylZero4y ago

The pure game theory idea doesn't work because it won't be internally consistent -- we understand morality isn't supposed to vary from person to person depending on how powerful their social position is.

1 more reply

DarylZero4y ago

Apply Rawls veil of ignorance.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse