We can view our conception of right and wrong as evolving due to the constraints of the system we are in
Interesting asides:
Are having a few sociopaths in the probability distribution useful?
“The genesis of morality may be due to long-term genetic self-interest, but the point is that the evolution to become genetically-predisposed to act in certain (successful) ways works in human beings through moral sentiment, such as a sense of fair play (or conversely, of injustice), a sense of responsibility, a sense of guilt or compassion. So the moral instincts and the resulting behavior have become part of our biological nature; and it’s not selfish to act out of a genuine sense of compassion or fair play. To argue that because the origins of morality are through self-interest therefore morality is just self-interest is an example of the genetic fallacy – the idea that the evolutionary origins of something determines its present nature and value.”
Shows that humans are inherently kind :). Theoretically.
The bottom-up emergence of morality
Keep adding constraints to the simulation and we get altruism as an optimal strategy.
The top-down rationalization of morality
Rationality in practice is how we explain to others what we already think is right.
Philosophy and religion is the result of this.
But after we started thinking about thinking it can go the other way…
I wonder how you can take this into consideration in a simulation?
What about “divergent morality”?
Different groups had different constraints which manifested itself into the value structures that we currently see.
People are more alike than different
The general programming is the same, but edge cases are handled slightly differently
Using a Western viewpoint, we can view Eastern values as ‘divergent’, but we can now see that both emerged in different constraints.
With that reasoning, since we’re no longer beholden to our programming -> everything is relative -> maybe nothing matters -> … maybe the post-modernists were onto something
Utilitarian argument against post-modernism
It’s not useful!
Leads to definite pessimism about the future
I know Plate and Aristotle weren’t post-modernists, but I think the post-modernists would fall in the bottom left.
We usually think of things through the absolute value structure we’ve been conditioned with. Then like the post-modernists we realize that this is all relative. Instead of rejecting what we have, we should choose an absolute value structure that is closer to definite optimism.
