If most moral and political questions are ultimately binary, it stands to reason that the average person is wrong about fifty percent of the time.
Are People With The Right Views Lucky?, by @ZoharAtkins whatiscalledthinking.substack.com/p/are-people-w…
Are People With The Right Views Lucky?, by @ZoharAtkins whatiscalledthinking.substack.com/p/are-people-w…
If correct moral reasoning doesn’t follow a bell curve pattern, but is instead what @nntaleb would call a black swan, the chances are even higher that the average person gets it wrong. A saint or a sage would be 1000x more moral than the median moral reasoner.
Jewish law exempts the shoteh, the crazy person, from many divine commandments. Empirically, the shoteh is a rare case. Theoretically, he’s a vanishing point against which jurists can define what it means to have knowledge and intent.
Yet from a progressive standpoint, most of us, most of the time, fall into the shoteh category.
The best response to the problem of moral-cognitive luck is a portfolio response; buy the equivalent of a moral index fund.
Yet this seems like a cop-out. Someone, somewhere must judge.
How can we throw ourselves wholeheartedly into moral judgment knowing we are likely to lose to a computer generated index of moral judgments?
How can we throw ourselves wholeheartedly into moral judgment knowing we are likely to lose to a computer generated index of moral judgments?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
