From: Ben Goertzel (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Feb 14 2004 - 15:39:17 MST
> Now I'm suggesting when we test the moral system that we can draw certain
> conclusions. One, if the system is contradictory, then under that system
> good things as defined by that system cannot be achieved. Two, if that
> system is self defeating, that is it works in such a way that the goals
> set by the system cannot be achieved, because the system itself undermines
> them, it cannot be considered a good moral system.
I disagree that if a system is contradictory, then under that system good
things as defined by that system cannot be achieved.
Even if an ethical system is contradictory in SOME respects, and
self-defeating in SOME respects, it may still be able to achieve MANY of the
goals it posits as important.
The idea that "one contradiction spoils the whole system" holds only for
systems interpreted by brittle logical-theorem-provers, it doesn't hold for
systems interpreted by more flexible intelligences.
> I am saying that a good moral system _must_ avoid those problems and I am
> NOT saying that every moral system that avoids those problems is a good
> moral system. Please do read implications as implications and not as
Sorry, you're right, I read your post too hastily...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 25 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT