[ExI] Morality function, self-correcting moral systems?

[Ben Zaiboc]

Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Anders Sandberg wrote:

>> Tomasz Rola wrote:
>> > However, I wonder if there was any attempt to devise a "morality
>> > function"
>> Yes. However, most professional ethicists would not think it is a
>> workable approach if you asked them.
>
>The problem: we discuss morality, ethics, try to improve ways humans deal
>with each other. Without knowing what is to be optimized, trying to
>optimize it is, to say mildly, optimistic...


Well, according to Sam Harris, 'well-being' is the obvious thing that should be optimised.  This sounds perfectly reasonable, to me.  Defining what exactly 'well-being' means, on the other hand, is the difficult thing.  Obviously one person's well-being is not necessarily the same as another's.  So personal preference must be a part of it, as well as 'universal' factors.  

It seems clear that as long as some groups of people can claim with a straight face that morality consists of following the rules laid down in an ancient book, claimed to be the inerrant word of a supernatural being, that there cannot really be any agreement on what morality is (even if only because there are many such books, each with different rules).  It may be easy to rationally demolish such rule-based moral systems, but that cuts no ice in the real world.  Try convincing a catholic that Original Sin is actually an evil concept.

Probably the only practical approach is to decide for yourself what you think a good moral system is, and do your best to stick to it.  Imposing your morals on someone else is probably immoral.  Unless you are the follower of an ancient book...


Ben Zaiboc