From: Mikko Särelä (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Feb 15 2004 - 02:15:29 MST
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> > 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.
The reason why I'm saying those two things comes from the fact that I
believe that there is at least one great moral system that does fulfill
those requirements. Thus if we have a moral system which doesn't fulfill
those, then we know, we can do better.
-- Mikko Särelä Emperor Bonaparte: "Where does God fit into your system?" Pièrre Simon Laplace: "Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 25 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT