tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post6938817512984056067..comments2024-03-25T11:49:21.281-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: Moral Duties to Flawed GodsEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-75133187362950980822015-08-14T13:40:06.126-07:002015-08-14T13:40:06.126-07:00I do have a defense for god though... Which is als...I do have a defense for god though... Which is also a defense for obeying his arbitrary requests.<br /><br />Maybe it is all about diversity.<br />God wants to create every possible outcome (the multiverse) that is better than a certain level of suffering (if he is good) and as a result he will request random things just to create another outcome which is a 'good' - in the same way that you and I existing is a better scenario than just me existing.<br /><br />GNZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-42317987926473569632015-08-14T13:29:02.083-07:002015-08-14T13:29:02.083-07:00Utility monster came to my mind the instant I read...Utility monster came to my mind the instant I read this too (but maybe that is because I think along amazingly similar lines to you).<br /><br />If god was a utility monster it implies his powers are severely limited because otherwise why doesn't he fix this utility structure such that our interests (if they have any value at all to him) are generally aligned with his interests (for example making us naturally want to wear his shirts as opposed to telling us to do it).<br /><br />I find when considering god I am usually not only forced to assume he is not purely 'good' but also that he can't be anywhere near 'omnipotent' or the world would be highly unlikely to work how it does now.<br /><br />GNZ<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-25780565959135135142015-05-19T19:23:43.448-07:002015-05-19T19:23:43.448-07:00the discussion was wrong to begin with.
if bible ...the discussion was wrong to begin with.<br /><br />if bible is to be believed, then he spoke to some chosen ones and made them believe he exists and also made them feel special, like they were chosen.<br />so he has this ability, if what is written in the bible is true.<br /><br />but even so, its wrong to be overwhelmed and it is wrong to have such insightful thoughts out of a sudden, it does not seem too conscious or rational. even if it is from god.<br /><br />it is a different story when you are in a great need and you feel powerless and there is nothing else to turn to.<br />if you need help, then you need help.<br /><br /><br />I do not really believe god is watching us right now or this particular blog.<br />I wish he would and will help all the problems.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-51416516997535335312015-05-18T09:25:13.968-07:002015-05-18T09:25:13.968-07:00Callan: Right, it's hard to imagine a realisti...Callan: Right, it's hard to imagine a realistic circumstance in which the slave would have a genuine moral debt to her master. The child case seems very different, and complex -- too complex for me to have (yet) thought out very well.<br /><br />Anon: God, if you're reading this post, be nice. We're real!<br /><br />Carl/chinaphil: I think I share both of your intuitions about your different cases (if "intuition" is the right word). I think it's likely that our intuitions don't form a coherent set. Although Utility Monsters get all the press, I think it's also possible to create problematic Monster cases for deontological approaches that focus on individual rights -- such as the Fission-Fusion Monster who can divide and recohere at will, dividing to claim rights then recohering to minimize obligations.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-83996659154795986112015-05-17T07:06:39.959-07:002015-05-17T07:06:39.959-07:00Carl: "clearly" is definitely the most d...Carl: "clearly" is definitely the most dangerous word in philosophy. In the case of your thought experiment, I think you're expressing an intuition based on in-group/out-group divisions which don't hold up.<br /><br />Consider an example closer to home: my cat likes to bat my legs, and sometimes this causes me mild pain. Nevertheless I continue playing this game with the cat. Obviously there are complicating factors here: I have a relationship with the cat; I like to watch it play. But the point is that as soon as we discover your aliens, we will enter into a relationship with them as well. So long as they're just a figment of your imagination, you can very easily "other" them and say you don't give a fig about their happiness. But if we really discovered them, we'd send people to look. We would witness their suffering, and that would affect us. We would enter into a curious affective feedback, and who knows where it would end.<br /><br />To get a better grip on the subject, I suggest thinking about a real life example: foie gras. Despite what the gourmets tell you, it's not really better than other pate. Its supposed value comes precisely from the suffering of the animal - it's another example of the magical thinking about food that makes people eat rare animals (if it's rare it must be good) or hard to catch animals (...) or potentially poisonous animals, or whatever. In the case of foie gras, we've caused an animal all this distress, and we've caused a change in its meat - therefore the meat must be better! Otherwise, why did it suffer?!<br /><br />If you look at attitudes to foie gras and how they've changed, I think you'll get a better idea about how utility inversions play out in reality.chinaphilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14572591745611690731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-584741176272566982015-05-16T11:51:05.227-07:002015-05-16T11:51:05.227-07:00I had previously had a thought experiment about ut...I had previously had a thought experiment about utility monsters: <br /><br />Suppose that there is either planet containing a monster that has 1 trillion times the normal amount of utility or, if that's impossible, 1 trillion monsters with the normal amount of utility. Further suppose that the monster or monsters watch Earth from their telescope and are happy when we suffer and suffer when we are happy.<br /><br />I take it as a refutation of utilitarianism that clearly (dangerous word in philosophy!), we are under no obligation to suffer in order to make these aliens happy. Yes, net utility would be improved by our suffering, but who cares? We owe no debt to the monsters. Let them suffer for their stupid preference of enjoying our suffering.<br /><br />On the other hand, suppose the monsters created the Earth thousands of years ago precisely because they wanted to get joy from watching our sufferings. In this case, I think we still wouldn't owe the aliens the duty of suffering, but… it wouldn't be as simple as just saying "screw them." We would be obliged to relieve their suffering in a way that I don't think is true in the case of aliens who perversely chose to start watching the Earth without a prior casual connection to us.Carl M. Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18083604047867623409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-55586611188095166962015-05-16T08:00:56.989-07:002015-05-16T08:00:56.989-07:00where is God if he exists?
why he does not help y...where is God if he exists?<br /><br />why he does not help you solve the mystery of his existence or non existence so we can have it done?<br /><br />he does not like you or what is it?<br /><br />maybe he is reading your post, fingers crossed.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-76465307058266442492015-05-16T04:05:52.331-07:002015-05-16T04:05:52.331-07:00Eric,
A slave's "debt" for food an...Eric,<br /><br /><i> A slave's "debt" for food and housing is clearly more than paid</i><br /><br />What if you're a bad slave and haven't done your assigned work?<br /><br />(okay, slightly unfair to use 'bad' as a reference here, as bad is always bad - though measures of what is bad and what isn't varies)<br /><br />On chicken dances, it's interesting how 'on my whim at any time' pretty much grates on oneself because (perhaps) it's essentially a kind of slavery.<br /><br />I'm not sure about the child - what of contributions of food and shelter? Can the child act as if the food and shelter just dropped out of the sky and actively resent any implication they owe anyone the least act of picking up socks, as much as if someone had implied they owe something for the air they breathe?Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-59366498430776524872015-05-15T10:51:50.773-07:002015-05-15T10:51:50.773-07:00(Hm, not last year -- February!)(Hm, not last year -- February!)Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-22483104212299156592015-05-15T10:51:08.079-07:002015-05-15T10:51:08.079-07:00Anon May 14: Brilliant! Maybe you said this in pa...Anon May 14: Brilliant! Maybe you said this in part because you saw my post last year on AI, utility monsters, and fission-fusion monsters. If not, you might check it out:<br />http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2015/02/how-robots-and-monsters-might-break.htmlEric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-60677048923737573722015-05-15T08:15:48.844-07:002015-05-15T08:15:48.844-07:00chinaphil: Right, reinventing theology, without th...chinaphil: Right, reinventing theology, without the assumption of a perfect God! The result will look rather different from Augustine, of course. But I am informed by some knowledge of traditional theology, which I am adapting, and if my thoughts continue these directions, I will learn more.<br /><br />Yes, if we are sims, we can know only a little about the simulators -- a slice of what they happen to reveal to us. So we'll have to make our judgments based on that, with an appropriate sense of our epistemic limitations in doing so. Now *if* we knew that God was morally perfect, then we could trust her commands and trust that all the seeming evil and suffering in the world is there for compelling reason. But from where I stand, the evidence seems to favor an imperfect God if there is any, so all I can do is make my judgments based on that. I suppose that's exactly what it is to lack faith.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-47456219687737227252015-05-15T08:10:07.374-07:002015-05-15T08:10:07.374-07:00Thanks for the comments, folks!
Callan: It is a s...Thanks for the comments, folks!<br /><br />Callan: It is a strange, complicated thing, this issue of owing someone a debt for bringing you into being or sustaining you. A slave's "debt" for food and housing is clearly more than paid, and maybe never even existed at all; a child's possible debt to neglectful parents is a mess, but merely having contributed sperm and nothing else doesn't seem to generate much if any obligation.<br /><br />On the one chicken dance per week: A clearly delimited number of whims seems okay, especially if it were thought of as an exchange respectfully entered or something done in the context of a loving relationship.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-8431836474957611862015-05-14T23:31:52.302-07:002015-05-14T23:31:52.302-07:00I agree with all this, so far as it goes. To the e...I agree with all this, so far as it goes. To the extent that a god can affect us, it is in our world, and subject to normal moral strictures; if it is not subject to moral constraints, then it is not in our world, and we owe it nothing.<br /><br />You're in some danger of trying to reinvent theology here, aren't you? This is what Augustine and pals spent their entire lives on. <br /><br />I think this model suffers because whoever the god is, we are only thinking about a tiny part of its moral universe: its relationship with its creation. We are a chicken, looking at a farmer, asking, why is he debeaking me? The answer only makes sense from the farmer's perspective. Similarly, if we are all sims, then it's pointless trying to understand the simulators through our window onto them. We have to look beyond that: why are they making this sim? E.g. Perhaps they've run it a billion times, and humanity always blows itself up; they're hoping that they can find a version where we don't in order to fix their own world. That gives them their moral context, and would help us to understand how their actions work. <br /><br />As an analogy, I find it very disturbing when journalists and bloggers seem to think that they know a person (celeb) because they've read their tweets. They claim to offer insight into how a Kardashian thinks, or what Sam Harris is like. Trying to understand god/The Programmer from the inside of its creation only is like trying to do psychology via Twitter.chinaphilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14572591745611690731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-33044888007459157452015-05-14T19:14:14.525-07:002015-05-14T19:14:14.525-07:00What about preference utilitarianism, with God as ...What about preference utilitarianism, with God as a utility monster?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-58286509826370680892015-05-14T17:17:23.964-07:002015-05-14T17:17:23.964-07:00Is it the whim that's the issue, or the implic...Is it the whim that's the issue, or the implication that any whim at any time must be forfilled? An unlimited number of whims, as opposed to, say, one chicken dance per week at most?<br /><br />Maybe it's another topic, but also what's with the debt thing - I mean, if you're not being helped to survive, what's the point of acknowleding debt here? Bring someone into the world but leave them to survive, then expect something from them for giving them the privilege of doing all the work of keeping themselves alive? If you left a baby in the woods and then came back years latter expecting service (assuming the baby lives to be a child), most people would consider you a heartless monster!<br /><br />If this is debt, shouldn't the slave feel a debt to the slaver for providing them food?Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.com