I would be interested to hear, from those who regard themselves as very rational and not afraid to boast about it, how confused people are about these issues.

What is the rational response to all of the scientific proof that our moral intuition is inconsistent? Is it definitely necessary to resolve the inconsistencies? If we can describe some resolutions as "in favor of idealism" and others as resolutions "in favor of cynicism," which kind is best supported by rationality?

Many common life experiences also reveal inconsistencies in your... (Read more)(Click to expand thread. ⌘F to Expand All)Cmd/Ctrl F to expand all comments on this post

I would be interested to hear, from those who regard themselves as very rational and not afraid to boast about it, how confused people are about these issues.

I'm not super rational, but I might as well say... I'm kind of confused about it, but what I've been doing for the last few months seems to be working so far.

Basically, I think that my moral intuitions are pretty solid at telling me which goals are good, but that my default emotions are pretty bad at weighing the relevant considerations, and lead to a large share of my inconsistency.

Lets take the O... (Read more)(Click to expand thread. ⌘F to Expand All)Cmd/Ctrl F to expand all comments on this post

9Vladimir_M9y In my opinion, the trolley problems and the Singerian arguments discussed in this video are far from sufficient to show that our moral intuition is actually inconsistent (though it probably is). These examples lead to problematic results only under naive utilitarian assumptions, which are not only unrealistic, but also turn out to be much more incoherent than human folk morality on closer examination. Our moral intuitions in fact do a very good job of arbitrating and coordinating human action given the unpredictability of the real world and the complexity of the game-theoretic issues involved, which utilitarianism is usually incapable of handling. (This is one of the main reasons why attempting explicit utilitarian calculations about real-life problems is one of the surest ways to divorce one's thinking from reality.) Singerians and other fervent utilitarians are enamored with their system so much that they see human deviations from it as ipso facto pathological and problematic, but as with other ideologues, when the world fails to conform to their system, it's usually a problem with the latter, not the former.

Put Yourself in Manual Mode (aka Shut Up and Multiply)

by lukeprog 9y27th Mar 20111 min read25 comments

7


Joshua Greene manages to squeeze his ideas about 'point and shoot morality vs. manual mode morality' into just 10 minutes. For those unfamiliar, his work is a neuroscientific approach to recommending that we shut up and multiply.

Greene's 10-minute video lecture.