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

[Anders Sandberg]

Ben Zaiboc wrote:
> Well, according to Sam Harris, 'well-being' is the obvious thing that should be optimised.  This sounds perfectly reasonable, to me. 

Sure. But it is a reasonable philosophical claim, rather than a 
scientific one (as he is claiming). See
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2010/10/sam-harris-the-naturalistic-fallacy-and-the-slipperiness-of-well-being/
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/11/sam-harris-is-wrong-about-science-and-morality/
for some griping from my office-mates about his claim. Note that several 
of us agree that well-being (whatever it is) is worth optimising, either 
because it is good itself or because it helps us achieve the good. But 
it is tricky to make a proper justification for it, let alone define it 
well.


> 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...
>   

In the end you have to decide for yourself what you think and do. But 
you should check out whether you can find high quality ideas about it, 
or find good methodologies for improving your own abilities to achieve it.

Some of you might be interested in Richard Sherry's "WHO’S TO SAY WHAT’S 
RIGHT OR WRONG?
PEOPLE WHO HAVE PH.D.S IN PHILOSOPHY, THAT’S WHO"
http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_1.pdf

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University