An Ethical Reason To Be Good

[Nick_A]

Walker

Can good come from evil?
Or
Can good come only from good?

I see this as the classic pragmatic defense of good or evil. If it serves my interests it is good. If it doesn't it is evil. If a person steals a hundred dollars from another it isn't to punish them but just the desire for the hundred dollars.

So for me, pragmatic conceptions of good can come from pragmatic conceptions of evil. But objective good and evil are related to standards we don't understand and struggle against their revelation. It is what makes life in Plato's cave possible and justified.

[Walker]

Walker

Can good come from evil?
Or
Can good come only from good?

I see this as the classic pragmatic defense of good or evil. If it serves my interests it is good. If it doesn't it is evil. If a person steals a hundred dollars from another it isn't to punish them but just the desire for the hundred dollars.

So for me, pragmatic conceptions of good can come from pragmatic conceptions of evil. But objective good and evil are related to standards we don't understand and struggle against their revelation. It is what makes life in Plato's cave possible and justified.

"If it serves my interests it is good. If it doesn't it is evil."

Not necessarily *.

The statement omits the true altruists who don't place identity within a concept of "my."

It also omits the last self-destructive* act of one trapped in a maze of delusion.


* If you consider self-destruction to be in your best interest, then this is determined with life and your relationship to life as the measure, rather than some ideology or political stance. Any religion that requires you to die in this life is suspect.

[Logik]

I see this as the classic pragmatic defense of good or evil. If it serves my interests it is good. If it doesn't it is evil.

This conception of good and evil fails to the Utility monster argument.

That is how I would define rationality acting in my best interest.
Intelligence even - achieving that which I set out to do.

Not morality.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer

[Eodnhoj7]

I see this as the classic pragmatic defense of good or evil. If it serves my interests it is good. If it doesn't it is evil.

This conception of good and evil fails to the Utility monster argument.

That is how I would define rationality acting in my best interest.
Intelligence even - achieving that which I set out to do.

Not morality.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer

The question of utility observers a reciprocation between subject and object, hence is just an approximation of the Golden rule and is subject to higher laws as such.

[Logik]

The question of utility observers a reciprocation between subject and object, hence is just an approximation of the Golden rule and is subject to higher laws as such.

Yes. The laws of physics.

[Eodnhoj7]

The question of utility observers a reciprocation between subject and object, hence is just an approximation of the Golden rule and is subject to higher laws as such.

Yes. The laws of physics.

False, the laws of physics are observations of movements. The cycles that defined physics, and the physics which defined the cycles both observe that the cycle reflects itself in infinite variations; thus leading to the third law of the munchauseen trillema in that all axioms exist through cycles.

Do you just make this stuff up? You have too because you argue everything is made up.

[Logik]

False, the laws of physics are observations of movements.

Yes. Systems dynamics.

Change is the only constant.

[Eodnhoj7]

False, the laws of physics are observations of movements.

Yes. Systems dynamics.

Change is the only constant.

Good, then all constants are boundaries of change and we are left with not just absolute truths but quite a few of them.

[Logik]

Good, then all constants are boundaries of change and we are left with not just absolute truths but quite a few of them.

Yes. That's what physics is all about. Defining limits. Upper bounds.

And even then we have things that are only constant across a subset of all of reality's dimensions.

So in that framework, something that is constant across all dimensions may just qualify for Truth.

[Eodnhoj7]

Good, then all constants are boundaries of change and we are left with not just absolute truths but quite a few of them.

Yes. That's what physics is all about. Defining limits. Upper bounds.

And even then we have things that are only constant across a subset of all of reality's dimensions.

So in that framework, something that is constant across all dimensions may just qualify for Truth.

Good, that math does not prove everything.

Second you said science is just made up, so physics is made up according to the framework of testing, hence what qualifies for truth is what could be continuously made up?

[Logik]

Good, that math does not prove everything.

Second you said science is just made up, so physics is made up according to the framework of testing, hence what qualifies for truth is what could be continuously made up?

You are going to flog the dead horse, aren't you?

The languages are made up.
The interpretation of the languages is made up.
The models are made up.
The methodologies for studying the world are made up.

But if you consistently use the language, apply the interpretation and align them with empirically and you use methodologies which work - THEN you will produce useful results. Omit ANY one of those things and you won't.

It's trivial to make errors and fool yourself!

[Eodnhoj7]

Good, that math does not prove everything.

Second you said science is just made up, so physics is made up according to the framework of testing, hence what qualifies for truth is what could be continuously made up?

You are going to flog the dead horse, aren't you?

The languages are made up.
The interpretation of the languages is made up.
The models are made up.
The methodologies for studying the world are made up.

But if you consistently use the language, apply the interpretation and align them with empirically and you use methodologies which work - THEN you will produce useful results. Omit ANY one of those things and you won't.

It's trivial to make errors and fool yourself!

So in "selling a tool" what you really are trying to do is control people and make them as you see fit? I mean if it is all made up, including the problem, all your are doing is just forming people into your own image.

[Logik]

So in "selling a tool" what you really are trying to do is control people and make them as you see fit? I mean if it is all made up, including the problem, all your are doing is just forming people into your own image.

So why are you speaking English now?

Use another tool. Why have you allowed yourself to be formed in other people's image?

[Eodnhoj7]

So in "selling a tool" what you really are trying to do is control people and make them as you see fit? I mean if it is all made up, including the problem, all your are doing is just forming people into your own image.

So why are you speaking English now?

Use another tool. Why have you allowed yourself to be formed in other people's image?

So why are you speaking English now?

Use another tool. Why have you allowed yourself to be formed in other people's image?

[Logik]

So why are you speaking English now?

Use another tool. Why have you allowed yourself to be formed in other people's image?

I think in a language of my own making. I speak in a language that you can understand.

I have certainly not allowed others to shape my mind

Turns out that the language I made was the same language Alan Turing and Alonson Church made 100 years ago.

So I wasn't all that original. Still - I got there from first principles.