Discuss with “Moral problems and good life” lectures @MIT

MIT Philosophy – Moral problems and good life lectures (to be updated)

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-02-moral-problems-and-the-good-life-fall-2008/

– Bentham: pleasure intrisically good, pain intrinsically bad; Me: pain (or the  perceived, or the result) is (are) irrelevant;
– Me: our desires are often misguided, focus on things that go beyond the perceived; to do so, think about the Black-Box problem: imagine you are born in a black box and  you want to see what’s outside
– Brandt’s theory: “What is good for me is the satisfaction of my rational desires”, Me: yes, but it is is difficult to set up the rational model of life + incompleteness theorem from Goedel
– “What is good for me is what my souped-up self would want for me, given knowledge of he relevant facts.”, Me: what is good for me, is what an all-knowing object would want for me, and this is what I shall seek, and let it come; any self-imposed restrictions imply sub-optimality
– internalist vs epistemic- Me: what is the difference between our “perfect” (in our eyes) intelligence graph and  our current one (what we do)? what would you do if you had no imposed constraints and restrictions? why do we face such  imposed constraints?
– Me on Kraut’s insights: self-punisher (one may think he wants something that is not good for him) model true, only a special case of the more general claim: we very rarely (if at any time) know what’s best for us, a special case here: we rarely want  to “suffer”; altruist-model (we optimize for others (their perceived (in our eyes) well-being)- yes, and in a more general case we  build our optimization problem; rock thrower model – just 1% of “anti-optimization”, icicle fanatic – about 99% of “anti-optimization”,  paternalist model (others may know better) – surely true, for this very reason we shall build the optimization problem the right way and exploit explicit feedback to avoid getting stuck; schoolchild model “we educate children to give them desires for the things that  are good” – agreed, expect for exchagning “educate” for “shall educate”
– “Kraut’s view is that something is objectively good if it is the sort of thing that has qualities that we can come to recognize and care about through a process of reasoned reflection.”, Me: in the context of the  incompleteness theorem, we will build our reasoned reflection on the top of the perceived
– consequentialism: “focus is on consequences on actions”, i.e. looking at consequences may be misleading, and the first problem is to extract the true consequences, it is better to focus on the reason, because it is the “key” that we use to  influence the “mechanism”, hence deontology
– deontology: “focus is on moral rules or reasons”, here we focus on reasons, but we now need to set up reasons, do reasons that “last” are more important?, closely related to virtue ethics (“An action is right insofar as it is the manifestation of a virtuous character trait, where virtuous  character traits are those that are present in the fully flourishing human being. “), the very “key” here (or “reason”) is represented as a virtue graph

Advertisements

About misha

Imagine a story that one can't believe. Hi. Life changes here. Small things only.
This entry was posted in Mathematics. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s