<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Nov 1, 2025, 6:06 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
Apologies for the formatting of this. I've just noticed that some
email clients jam the text together, making it hard to read.<br>
<br>
Here is a better formatted version (I hope!):<br>
<br>
<div>On 01/11/2025 21:42, Ben wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div lang="x-unicode">
<div>On 01/11/2025 13:32, Jason Resch
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 5:02 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div><div>On 31/10/2025 19:04, Jason Resch wrote:
</div><blockquote type="cite"><pre><div>the paper ( <a href="https://philarchive.org/rec/ARNMAW" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://philarchive.org/rec/ARNMAW</a> ) defines what a perfect morality consists of. And it too, provides a definition of what morality is, and likewise provides a target to aim towards.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Ben Wrote:
As different intelligent/rational agents have different experiences,
they will form different viewpoints, and come to different conclusions
about what is right and not right, what should be and what should not,
what they want and what they don't, just like humans do.</blockquote><div>
</div><div>The point of the video and article is that desires are based on beliefs, and because beliefs are correctable then so are desires. There is only one "perfect grasp" and accordingly, one true set of beliefs, and from this it follows one most-correct set of desires. This most correct set of desires is the same for everyone, regardless of from which viewpoint it is approached.</div></pre>
</blockquote>
Nope. This is nonsense. Just about every assertion is wrong. The
very first sentence in the abstract is false. And the second. And
the third. So the whole thing falls apart.
Desires are not based on beliefs, they are based on emotions. The
example of 'wanting to drink hot mud' is idiotic. Just because the
cup turns out to contain mud doesn't invalidate the desire to drink
hot chocolate.</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">I think you are misinterpreting the example. It is the desire to drink the contents of the cup is what changes in response to new information.</div><div dir="auto">
</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">I wouldn't have put it
as 'desire to drink the contents of the cup', when the desire is
to drink hot chocolate. There are originating desires and there
are planned actions to satisfy the desire. Drinking from the cup
might turn out to be a bad idea (the plan is faulty because of
incorrect information), but the original desire is not changed.<br>
If you want to see a Batman movie at a movie theatre, and find
that the only movie available is a romantic comedy, you don't
say that you have a desire to watch any movie which has suddenly
changed. You still want to watch Batman, but can't, so your
desire is thwarted, not changed.<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">Think about this alternate example which may be easier to consider: you may naively have the desire to take a certain job, to marry a particular person, attend a certain event, but if that choice turns out to be ruinous, you may regret that decision. If your future self could warn you of the consequences of that choice, then you may no longer desire that job, marriage, or attendance, as much as you previously did, in light of the (unknown) costs they bore, but which you were unaware of.</div><div dir="auto">
</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">Decisions are often
regretted. That is a fact of life. Future selves warning you
about bad decisions is not. That's time-travel (aka 'magic'),
and should not feature in any serious consideration of how to
make good decisions. "If x could..." is no help when x is
impossible. We have workable tools to help people make better
decisions, but time-travel isn't one of them.</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">These are examples to communicate a point. They are not intended be taken literally.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The point is you may desire a job, but had you known more about the job, you would not have desired it.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite">
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> It's not a 'mistaken' desire at all (the mistake is a
sensory one), and it doesn't somehow morph into a desire to drink
hot mud.
"Beliefs are correctable, so desires are correctable"
Each of those two things are true (if you change 'correctable' to
'changeable'), but the one doesn't imply the other, which follows
from the above.
</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">Does it apply in the examples I provided?</div><div dir="auto">
</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">No. The examples are
about decisions, not desires, and they don't address the beliefs
that lead to the decisions. "You may have the desire to do X" is
different to "You decide to do X". The desire may drive the
decision or at least be involved in it, but it isn't the
decision (some poeple act immediately on their desires, but that
still doesn't mean they are the same thing).<br>
Can you regret a desire? I don't think so, but it is arguable.
It would be regretting something that you have no direct control
over, so would be rather silly.<br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">The decision is irrelevant.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You either desire the job or you don't. The point is that this can change based on new information.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode">
<br>
Apart from that, there is still no dependency of desires on
beliefs.</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If you believe it will be good for you, you may desire it. If you learn later that it will be bad for you, you may no longer desire it. Here, what you desire has a dependency on what you believe.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode"> A belief may well affect the plan you make to satisfy a
desire, but changing the belief doesn't change the desire. Can a
belief give rise to a desire? That's a more complicated question
than it appears, I think, and leads into various types of
desires, but still, there's no justification for the statement
"beliefs can change, therefore desires can".<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> 'Perfect grasp' doesn't mean anything real. It implies that it's
possible to know everything about everything, or even about
something. The very laws of physics forbid this, many times over, so
using it in an argument is equivalent to saying "magic".
</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">It doesn't have to be possible. The paper is clear on this. The goal of the paper is to answer objectively what makes a certain thing right or wrong. For example, if someone offered you $10 and I return for some random person unknown to you would be killed, in a way that would not negatively affect you or anyone you knew, and your memory of the ordeal would be wiped so you wouldn't even bear a guilty conscience, for what reason do we judge and justify the wrongness of taking the $10?</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">This is 'Trolley
problem thinking'. Making up some ridiculous scenario that would
never, or even could never, occur in the real world, then
claiming that it has relevance to the real world.</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's to frame the problem: where does morality come from, what is its basis, by what method do how do we determine right or wrong?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite">
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">This is the goal of the paper to provide a foundation upon which morality can be established objectively from first principles.</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">Let's see some
examples that are grounded in reality that 'provide a foundaton
upon which morality can be established objectively'. I'm not
closed to the possibility that such a thing can be done, but I'm
not holding my breath.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">How would you and the question of what separates right from wrong? The initial utilitarian answer is whatever promotes more good experiences than bad experiences. But then, how do you weigh the relative goodness or badness of one experience vs. another, between one person and another, between the varying missed opportunities among future possibilities?</div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">Such questions can only be answered with something approximating an attempt at a grasp of what it means and what it is like to be all the various existing and potential conscious things.</div></pre>
</blockquote>
That's just another way of saying that it can't be answered.
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">We can make heuristic attempts at this, despite the fact that we never achieve perfection.</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">Exactly. We always
have to make decisions in the /absence/ of full information.
What we would do if we had 'all the information' is irrelevant,
if it even means anything.</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes, this is what I've been saying from the beginning. Perfect grasp is used only to define the aim of morality, not to serve as a practical theory.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Consider weather prediction. We can't predict with 100% accuracy, nor predict arbitrarily far into the future. Yet we can make near term predictions with some modicum of accuracy.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This is how moral decisions can (and should) be approached.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite">
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">For example, Democracy can be viewed as a crude approximation, by which each person is given equal weight in the consideration of their desires (with no attempt to weight relative benefits or suffering). But this is still better than an oligarchy, where the desires of few are considered while the desires of the masses are ignored. And also you can see the difference between uninformed electorate vs. a well informed one. The informed electorate has a better grasp of the consequences of their decisions, and so their collective desires are more fully fulfilled.</div><div dir="auto">
</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">I don't see the
relevance to morality. Politics and morality are rarely on
talking terms.</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Please consider what I wrote carefully. It is an example of putting into practice a heuristic. And how better heuristics are based on the same model and definition of morality as defined in that paper.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite">
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
'One true set of beliefs' is not only wrong, it's dangerous, which
he just confirms by saying it means there is only one most-correct
set of desires, for /everyone/ (!).</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">Do you not believe in objective truth?</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">No.<br>
This is religious territory, and the road to dogmatism.<br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">Belief in objective truth is the basis of science.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode">
This is the very reason wny science is superior to religion.</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">Without objective truth, by what measure is any theory in science said to be better than any other? What is the meaning of "falsified" if there are no objective truths or falsehoods? Science as a field and endeavor collapses without a notion of objective truth (unless, perhaps you subscribe to some constructionist, relativist, post-modern notion of reality/truth). But I take the view that most scientists consider their work as something beyond a social interaction/game.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode"> It
doesn't assume that there is any 'absolute truth' which can be
discovered, after which no further inquiry is needed or wanted.<br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think you may be confusing the existence of objective truth, with the idea that we can access that objective truth and have certainty when we hold it. One does not imply the other.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I believe there is objective truth, *and* I believe we can never be certain if/when we have it.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We think it is objectively true that 2+2=4, but we can't prove it mathematically, unless we assume some set of axioms (which themselves may or may not be true), and we cannot prove the set of axioms are true. So even on the most trivial matters, we never achieve certainty.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode">
As to whether, for instance, the laws of physics are invariant
everywhere and at all times, that's a question we can't answer,
and probably will never be able to.<br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Many things are true that we will never know.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The 10^(googolplex)th digit of the binary representation of Pi is either 1 or 0. But we, in our finite universe, will never have the computational resources to determine which.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Nevertheless at least one of these two statements is objectively true:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">- The 10^(googolplex)th digit of the binary representation of Pi is 1.</div><div dir="auto">- The 10^(googolplex)th digit of the binary representation of Pi is 0.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But for those who believe in objective truth, one of these statements is true.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode">
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">If there is objective truth, they are the same truths for everyone.</div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">Now consider the objective truths for statements such as "it is right to do X" or "it is wrong to do Y". If there are objective truths, these extend to an objective morality. There would be an objective truth to what action is best (even if we lack the computational capacity to determine it).</div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">You may say this is fatal to the theory, but note that we can still roughly compute with the number Pi, even though we never consider all of its infinite digits.</div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> Does this not ring loud alarm
bells to you? I'm thinking we'd better hope that there really is no
such thing as objective morality (if there is, Zuboff is barking up
the wrong tree, for sure), it would be the basis for the worst kind
of tyranny. It's a target that I, at least, want to aim away from.
180 degrees away!
</div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">No one is proposing a putting a tyrannical AI in charge that forces your every decision. But a superintelligent AI that could explain to you the consequences of different actions you might take (as far as it is able to predict them) would be quite invaluable, and improve the lives of many who choose to consider its warnings and advice.</div><div dir="auto">
</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">Absolutely. I have no
argument with that. But we were talking about morality.</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes and morality concerns which actions are right or wrong.</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite">
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
His twisting of desire into morality is, well, twisted. Morality
isn't about what we should want to do, just as bravery isn't about
having no fear. </div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">Do you have a better definition of morality?</div><div dir="auto">
</div></pre>
</blockquote>
I don't think that's the answer you want to ask. A dictionary
can provide the answer.<br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">This is what the dictionary says:</div><div dir="auto">"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But this only pushes the problem back: what is the definition of right or wrong, good or bad?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Zuboff's paper is an example of an theoretical basis on which we can form such a definitions, and define what we mean by right and wrong, good and bad.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode">
<br>
I do have my own moral code though, if that's what you want to
know. I don't expect everyone to see the value of it, or adopt
it. And I might change my mind about it in the future.</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Let us say you have a particular set of rules in your code.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">By why process do you decide what rules to adopt, or decide to adopt one rule vs. another.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">My contention is that to even form a moral code, one must hold some meta-rule for optimizing what knew considers to be good while minimizing or avoiding bad. And I think if you explored this meta-rule, you would find it is not all that different from the position Zuboff reaches in his paper.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Ultimately, what is good (for one individual) is what that individual would want for themselves if they had a complete knowledge of everything involved. And then this then extended to define good as a maximization of good for all concerned, to achieve the most possible good among all beings who have desires, by satisfying (to the maximum possible extent) the desires each individual would still hold if they all had a perfect grasp of everything. This he refers to as a reconciliation of all systems of desire.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>He wants to turn people into puppets, and actually
remove moral agency from them. </div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">
</div><div dir="auto">Imperfect understanding of consequences cripples our ability to be effective moral agents.</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">Then you think we are
crippled as effective moral agents, and doomed to always be so
(because we will always have imperfect understanding of
consquences).</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">Indeed. That is why life is so hard, and why "to err is human." As imperfect beings we perpetual mistakes are inevitable.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But with greater knowledge, experience, and intelligence, we can strive to minimize that error.</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite">
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><div dir="auto"> When we don't understand the pros and cons of a decision, how can we hope to be moral agents? We become coin-flippers -- which I would argue is to act amorally. If we want true moral agency, we must strive to improve our grasp of things.</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div lang="x-unicode">This is taking an
extreme position, and saying either we are 'perfect' or no use
at all.</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">Not at all. I specified "when we don't understand..."</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode"> We are neither. Acting with incomplete information is
inevitable. </div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">Yes.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode">That doesn't mean morality is impossible.<br></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">I fully agree.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode">
<br>
Just as bravery is being afraid, but acting anyway, morality is
not knowing for sure what the best action is, but acting anyway.</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">Since we never know anything for sure, I'm not sure that qualifier adds anything useful. I would instead say: moral action requires an attempt to identify the morally best action, and then choosing that action.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Then, "amoral action" is action without attempting to identify what the morally best action is, and "immoral action" would be an attempt to identify the morally best action, but then choosing a different action.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode">
Making the best decision you can, in line with your values. It's
about having a choice. If it were possible to have 'perfect
knowledge', there would be no morality, no choice.</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I'm not sure that follows. Even with perfect knowledge, you could still choose whether or not to act in accordance with morally best action.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="x-unicode"> I'm not sure
what you'd call it. Predetermination, perhaps.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Ben</pre>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>