… in response to “Because you will probably be punished, and that tends to not satisfy your preferences.” ?
I think you mean that you should correctly predict the odds and disutility (over your life) of potential punishments, and then act rationally selfishly. I think this may be too computationally expensive in practice, and you may not have considered the severity of the (unlikely event) that you end up severely punished by a reputation of being an effectively amoral person.
Yes, we see lots of examples of successful and happy unscrupulous people in the news. But consider selection effects (that contradiction of conventional moral wisdom excites people and sells advertisements).
I meant that we already do have a field of applied mathematics and science that talks about those things, why do we need moral philosophy?
I am not saying that it is a clear cut issue that we, as computationally bounded agents, should abandon moral language, or that we even would want to do that. I am not advocating to reduce the complexity of natural language. But this community seems to be committed to reductionism, minimizing vagueness and the description of human nature in terms of causal chains. I don’t think that moral philosophy fits this community.
This community doesn’t talk about theology either, it talks about probability and Occam’s razor. Why would it talk about moral philosophy when all of it can be described in terms of cultural anthropology, sociology, evolutionary psychology and game theory?
This community doesn’t talk about theology either[...]Why would it talk about moral philosophy when all of it can be described in terms of cultural anthropology, sociology, evolutionary psychology and game theory?
It is a useful umbrella term—rather like “advertising”.
Also, what did you mean by
… in response to “Because you will probably be punished, and that tends to not satisfy your preferences.” ?
I think you mean that you should correctly predict the odds and disutility (over your life) of potential punishments, and then act rationally selfishly. I think this may be too computationally expensive in practice, and you may not have considered the severity of the (unlikely event) that you end up severely punished by a reputation of being an effectively amoral person.
Yes, we see lots of examples of successful and happy unscrupulous people in the news. But consider selection effects (that contradiction of conventional moral wisdom excites people and sells advertisements).
I meant that we already do have a field of applied mathematics and science that talks about those things, why do we need moral philosophy?
I am not saying that it is a clear cut issue that we, as computationally bounded agents, should abandon moral language, or that we even would want to do that. I am not advocating to reduce the complexity of natural language. But this community seems to be committed to reductionism, minimizing vagueness and the description of human nature in terms of causal chains. I don’t think that moral philosophy fits this community.
This community doesn’t talk about theology either, it talks about probability and Occam’s razor. Why would it talk about moral philosophy when all of it can be described in terms of cultural anthropology, sociology, evolutionary psychology and game theory?
It is a useful umbrella term—rather like “advertising”.
Can all of it be described in those terms? Isn’t that a philosophical claim?