I sort of wonder if it's possible not to live in a moral catastrophe. That is not to say : "Well, there will always be moral catastrophe, so let's move along.." No, I'm saying that we'll certainly find other parts of our existence that we find immoral as time goes on. However, the real progress of our species might just be in the overcoming of these moral catastrophes. Maybe something along those lines should be our guiding principles into the future instead of the current norm of diety worship. Why not worship our own ever more moral future? And if you're looking for more moral Catastrophe's, look at Peter Singer's 1972 paper "Famine, Affluence and Morality." I've personnally found it hard to argue against or reconcile the way that I live with it. I've been thinking about it for months and I'm searching for a better way to move forward personally.
Is it that the true morality is something we don’t yet recognize (if so what’s holding us back) or is it that the more developed morality of the future will look at our current actions as wrong?
If the former, I’d be interested in understanding precisely why we can’t just big-brain this like Plato and at the very least identify the problems, if not the solutions due to living in an imperfect world that consumed energy and outputs organization. If the latter, and it’s just relative, I don’t care and I don’t see why I should.
I’m assuming the former and granting that moral philosophers can big-brain their way into the solutions. The problem is most people aren’t moral philosophers, and you need most people’s buy-in to implement solutions, which would be easier with new institutions.
it seems almost certain that we are living in a moral catastrophe just in light of the fact that we, a) individually and b) as groups, easily have enough resources to provide, a) many people and b) every person on earth, a reasonably comfortable, safe and healthy existence but we dont.
How do you feel about potential reversals of moral progress?
For example, I'd bet that in an apocalyptic scenario we'd see a massive reversion to pure self-interest even beyond a morally justifiable point — despite the fact we'd still have all moral literature and thought available.
That's an extreme case, but not *too* extreme (consider the possible effect of climate change on certain countries or a possible widespread unemployment due to AI), and you don't even need an extreme case. If society in 30 years is less moral than today's, even by a fraction, does the market still work?
Moral backsliding would pose an issue but I don’t think it’s too likely. And even if there’s a reasonable chance of backsliding, the market would have to expect it to be greater than the gains made by getting people to be more rational to be on net counterproductive.
Very disappointed to learn that a futarchy is not rule by Futanari anime girls.
That isn't mutually exclusive with prediction market-based policy.
Thank God!
I sort of wonder if it's possible not to live in a moral catastrophe. That is not to say : "Well, there will always be moral catastrophe, so let's move along.." No, I'm saying that we'll certainly find other parts of our existence that we find immoral as time goes on. However, the real progress of our species might just be in the overcoming of these moral catastrophes. Maybe something along those lines should be our guiding principles into the future instead of the current norm of diety worship. Why not worship our own ever more moral future? And if you're looking for more moral Catastrophe's, look at Peter Singer's 1972 paper "Famine, Affluence and Morality." I've personnally found it hard to argue against or reconcile the way that I live with it. I've been thinking about it for months and I'm searching for a better way to move forward personally.
Is it that the true morality is something we don’t yet recognize (if so what’s holding us back) or is it that the more developed morality of the future will look at our current actions as wrong?
If the former, I’d be interested in understanding precisely why we can’t just big-brain this like Plato and at the very least identify the problems, if not the solutions due to living in an imperfect world that consumed energy and outputs organization. If the latter, and it’s just relative, I don’t care and I don’t see why I should.
I’m assuming the former and granting that moral philosophers can big-brain their way into the solutions. The problem is most people aren’t moral philosophers, and you need most people’s buy-in to implement solutions, which would be easier with new institutions.
I wonder what percentage of people would have to be vegan to have the average person feel shame and guilt for not being one.
it seems almost certain that we are living in a moral catastrophe just in light of the fact that we, a) individually and b) as groups, easily have enough resources to provide, a) many people and b) every person on earth, a reasonably comfortable, safe and healthy existence but we dont.
How do you feel about potential reversals of moral progress?
For example, I'd bet that in an apocalyptic scenario we'd see a massive reversion to pure self-interest even beyond a morally justifiable point — despite the fact we'd still have all moral literature and thought available.
That's an extreme case, but not *too* extreme (consider the possible effect of climate change on certain countries or a possible widespread unemployment due to AI), and you don't even need an extreme case. If society in 30 years is less moral than today's, even by a fraction, does the market still work?
Moral backsliding would pose an issue but I don’t think it’s too likely. And even if there’s a reasonable chance of backsliding, the market would have to expect it to be greater than the gains made by getting people to be more rational to be on net counterproductive.