

a theory of good and evil for the analytically inclined - idushan
http://metaethics.org
Metaethics.org is my shot at setting up a "theory of good and evil" that works for all you fellow hackers and analytically inclined people. What do you think?
======
lifeguard
This did not resonate with me. Almost reminded me of Ayn Rand.

I believe one should do good because it is the correct thing to do, not for
any benefit to oneself or community. "No good deed goes unpunished" is a
truism for me.

To go deeper, this:
[http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2011/230/1/9/the_three...](http://th01.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2011/230/1/9/the_three_vinegar_tasters_by_rndmtask-d472lpq.jpg)

~~~
idushan
That's okay. Beautiful drawing. :-) BTW: what do you mean by "should"?

------
kijin
Sounds like an interesting combination of:

\- consequentialism (good and bad are judged by their consequences on the
strength of structures)

\- emotivism & subjectivism (how relevant a structure "feels" to us)

\- a vaguely articulated position on the nature/nurture debate (feeling of
relevancy towards structures is innate)

\- some preconceived yet undefended notions about what's physically/abstractly
relevant (why would I give a damn about reproduction, or order and authority,
if not for social indoctrination?), and

\- a healthy dose of Eastern philosophy/religion (inner peace, alignment,
etc.).

An "analytically inclined" reader will probably begin by asking:

\- Define "structure".

\- Define what "strenghthen" and "weaken" mean when it comes to structures.

\- Define "relevance", and tell me how to measure it.

\- What's the threshold for dropping "for X" and just calling something "good"
or "bad" _simpliciter_?

\- If the feeling of relevancy and the mechanisms behind it are innate, what
causes wild differences in people's opinions about right and wrong?

\- What does it mean for a structure to "support" or "encompass" another?

\- 7) sounds like a Chinese fortune teller's advice.

\- Is it possible to align yourself to one structure without harming any other
structure? Seriously, no collateral damage?

\- Why is Kant's categorical imperative "self-delusional"?

There are many bad things about analytic philosophy, but the preoccupation
with precision is _not_ one of them. Without precision, your statements could
mean anything whatsoever, and many such interpretations will be self-
contradictory. But what is philosophy if not a lifelong project of refining
one's beliefs and exploring their implications? Fix the ambiguities, fix the
vague statements, squash bugs a.k.a. contradictions, wash, rinse, repeat.

Finally, points 3-9 would belong more in moral psychology than in metaethics.

P.S. You own metaethics.com, .net, and .org? Wow. Some of the philosophical
associations that are devoted to metaethical discussions could really use one
of those domains. Honestly, I think it's a waste of three perfectly good
domains to use them for a one-page manifesto.

~~~
idushan
Thank you so much for this absolutely awesome reply. The thing is: I totally
agree with what you say, also definitely on what should be done next, e.g.
defining structure.

I dont' believe in "the battle of armchairs". I would rather do philosophy in
the same way we develop software: iteratively, MVP, POC…. That's why I put up
a couple of ideas as an experiment. And your answer already proves that in a
small way I was right! Thank you. – I will do as you advised and develop these
thoughts in a iterative way.

Regarding the domains: I personally think that Metaethics is among the most
important intellectual subjects of the future. If you understand why and under
what condition people consider stuff good or evil, you can predict how people
behave in minor and major scale, what makes them go to war or buy products.
Metaethics is too important to leave it to philosophers who mostly are
clueless about math, software or the scientific method. And that is why I a)
reach out to hackers, and b) have reserved the domains.

Again, thank you. Your answer alone has made this little experiment a success.
:-)

