The way I see this argument in this post is that you pick out a value/â capacity which you think would be especially desirable for the future to hold- in this case âgood decision-makingâ- and then track back to the individual acts which might help propagate it.
If this is the correct model of the argument, might it be the case that more narrowly defined values/âcapacities are more memetically strong and morally robust? In my opinion many aspects of âgood decision-makingâ might lead to worse outcomes- for example the focus on character in politicians mentioned above might be present in the best possible worlds but in many nearer possible worlds it is a failed proxy which leads to politicians selected because they seem reliable rather than because they have the best policies. Or perhaps many people who learn a few decision-making skills become over confident and stray into a naive version of the goal. In contrast, more finite goals such as âabolish factory farmingâ, âpromote anti-racismâ are (in my opinion) less likely to lead to false proxies and clearly propagate along social networks because they incorporate their own ends. Not every aspect of an imperfect decision-making practice is bad or leads to bad outcomes, but with more narrow goals like those mentioned above, falling short of the goals is always bad. My impression is that this is a sign of a better proxy for what is good.
Iâd love to know whether people think this is on the right track- I donât know very much about the strength of the âgood decision-makingâ goal so it would be great to hear more about its strengths.
The way I see this argument in this post is that you pick out a value/â capacity which you think would be especially desirable for the future to hold- in this case âgood decision-makingâ- and then track back to the individual acts which might help propagate it.
If this is the correct model of the argument, might it be the case that more narrowly defined values/âcapacities are more memetically strong and morally robust? In my opinion many aspects of âgood decision-makingâ might lead to worse outcomes- for example the focus on character in politicians mentioned above might be present in the best possible worlds but in many nearer possible worlds it is a failed proxy which leads to politicians selected because they seem reliable rather than because they have the best policies. Or perhaps many people who learn a few decision-making skills become over confident and stray into a naive version of the goal. In contrast, more finite goals such as âabolish factory farmingâ, âpromote anti-racismâ are (in my opinion) less likely to lead to false proxies and clearly propagate along social networks because they incorporate their own ends. Not every aspect of an imperfect decision-making practice is bad or leads to bad outcomes, but with more narrow goals like those mentioned above, falling short of the goals is always bad. My impression is that this is a sign of a better proxy for what is good.
Iâd love to know whether people think this is on the right track- I donât know very much about the strength of the âgood decision-makingâ goal so it would be great to hear more about its strengths.