Comments on: Moral Rules Are To Check Power

By: Quotations of interestingness « Mike Kenny

Quotations of interestingness « Mike Kenny — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:00:57 +0000

[...] the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology via Robin Hanson: Thinking about and having power affects the way in which people resolve moral dilemmas. … In [...]

By: Everyone else prefers laws to values « Meteuphoric

Everyone else prefers laws to values « Meteuphoric — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:20:55 +0000

[...] problem gets worse the less predictable the agents are to you. Humans seem to naturally find rules more important for more powerful people and consequences more important for [...]

By: Situationism in the Blogosphere – August 2009, Part III « uncondition

Situationism in the Blogosphere – August 2009, Part III « uncondition — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:14:54 +0000

[...] From Overcoming Bias: “Moral Rules Are To Check Power” [...]

By: fburnaby

fburnaby — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:24:47 +0000

The rules are written in the first place to prevent the types of emotional responses which end up being harmful or deemed unfair within our society. I would presume that this high level of efficiency (which granted, it would provide) isn’t really an option.

By: Illuminatus?

Illuminatus? — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:11:38 +0000

Whose morals should apply? Whose view on outcomes?

Fascism/national socialism, the strongest leader
Socialist/communist, working class, mob rule
Left liberals, moral relativists, mob rule
Social conservative, objective morals from god
Classic liberal, natural law and by mutual agreement of 2/3 majority
Anarchist, only if mutually agreed by each individual?

By: N Jack

N Jack — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:55:42 +0000

All this stuff seems to go around in circles. Social censure… I think all this should be judged in the context of sexual selection. No matter how elevated human activities seem to be it all comes back to that fundamental drive. The opposite sex (for most people), especially sexy women, are the most influential arbiters of value/s… not Allan Greenspan, or Bernanke, not the Judiciary etc.
The thing is, do you maintain thousands of years worth of strategy i.e. Marriage (conservative)? You most probably will if you have little choice i.e. under conditions of scarcity or an oppressive regime. Or… if you have a Prairie vole type relationship as oppose to a Montane vole relationship. Absurd? Going off in seemingly irrelevant directions?
My main point is, as Per Bak’s work on sand pile complexity, power laws, illustrates rather nicely, ambiguity blah blah… etc you can have fun going round in circles but really I think the best answers probably lie in what Bill Moyers and Daniel Goleman discuss on youtube, look it up.

By: Jack Lover

Jack Lover — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:32:49 +0000

Are rules really faster? To me it seems that emotions and especially intuition are by far faster than rational thought. Intuition research seems to support my view. (see for example Intuition at Work)

Also, people seem to override rational thought with emotions all the time. The reverse is much less common.

When we really use rules for decision, not just rationalization, we seem to use more rational thought and less emotions and intuitions.

By: Constant

Constant — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:29:33 +0000

It would be interesting to see how that played out specifically for the Kelo verdict. If ox-goring is what distinguishes who voted which way, does this reveal that liberals are the party of big business and conservatives are the party of the small guy? Or what?

By: TGGP

TGGP — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:25:11 +0000

Supercrunchers had a section comparing a mathematical model vs experts making predictions on how different Supreme Court judges would vote. The mathematical model beat them hands down and didn’t have to know any of the rationalizations, but it did have to know which was the “liberal” vs “conservative” conclusion to come to (as well as whose ox was being gored).

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 02:29:53 +0000

These are good points.