zurew

Last time I checked , If I remember correctly, I think I was. Why? Edit: no, last time (2 years ago) I got INFJ-T on the test)

That could counterintuitively mean that it is lacking semantic nuance. Maybe given the words that you used in the context that you used them in , maybe it can be interpreted in 5 different ways and immediately jumping in with one of those interpretation without asking for further clarification could mean different things. So for example it could mean 1) that it consciously choose the right or most likely one between all the possible interpretations or 2) it could mean that it just wasn't aware of any other possible interpretation because it couldn't see how much semantic nuance is there.

Are we talking about a test where the human in question can study the things that you will ask about beforehand and can use google at the time when you ask your questions?

Regarding generating new perspectives - could the AI that you used generate different perspectives while maintining the same set of facts? So lets say there are 10 facts and you want to explain those 10 facts using 4 different perspectives. Can the AI do that in a way where it includes all the 10 facts in each of those 4 perspectives? (so you have set X that stands for 10 facts. Perspective 1 includes set X , Perspective 2 includes set X etc, the only thing that differentiates the perspectives is the explanation)

This argument only works if we don't dive deeper in to the semantics about what we mean by "trusting yourself". Of course we need to take for granted a set of things to even begin epistemology, but all of those things are granted in the case of AI as well. The difference is that, there are tests that can be run on a human and on AI and that can give a picture about the differences (for example being wrong about facts)

Kind of goes back to what the good old Jordan Peterson said. Paraphrasing - You not being able to cause direct harm does not make you moral

Morality boils down to the choices you have the power to make. If you can only do one action and cannot not do that action, in that context morality is completely meaningless, cause there is no agency there.

Okay, so that case you have a definition where literally every being is selfish which makes it kind of meaningless and makes it lose its power.

You can label that selfish if you want, but that seems weird, cause again some of these preferences or moral inuitions are not choosen and you can't really overwrite them. The term selfish implies some conscious, deliberate action in this context, it would imply the choosing of all your moral axioms. But regardless, the argument im making is compatible with you labeling the moral axioms or moral intuitions as selfish. The argument only states that we do have those underlying axioms and some of those are shared between us and they can be discorvered upon self reflection and some actions have a direct consequence that would contradict some of those axioms (and you can become aware of them) and we are talking about actions that you have the choice not to do.

Its axiomatic, there is no justification for it. You don't know whether that is or is not the case. But even if you can show that is the case, after that you would need to show how that is a necessary contradiction according to my moral axioms. Would me not buying those clothes necessarily reduce slave labour if so show me that and show me what the direct consequences of reducing slave labour. Btw, none of this gets you to justify your position - even if you could point out an inconsistency , that still wont get you where you want to get.

We can use the term "moral intuition" then if you have a preference for that We can add more to the subjetivist moral language set if you want - to be able to express things with more nuance, but it doesn't really change the underlying point that is made.

We can play this game of having the need to dive deeper into the semantics, but a more straightforward example would be the preference that murder is wrong.

and yet, you probably still wouldn't be okay with hunting humans for their meat.

Yes, but that 'selfishness' is reflective of your preferences, and you don't seem to be able to consciously overwrite some of your deepest preferences. And for most people one preference that cant really be overwritten is the caring about other sentient beings or that murder is wrong.

I would vote for this one for sure.

Now, assuming that is actually true ( I mean you actually truly need to eat some meat) , that would be a justification that most vegans would probably accept.

I meant actually infinite memory, so knowing all the possible chess games that can be played and within those all the possible moves that can be played. The reason why I brought that up, because it seems to me that both of these individuals would have the exact same amount of chance to win - a person with infinite memory going against a person who has infinite intelligence (of course we are talking in the context of chess)

Oh shit Leo is afraid to self-reflect on his own values deep enough, cause he might discover that he needs to change some of his actions.

Yes thats right, but from that doesn't follow that they believe that their preferences are objective. You can have multiple people with the same preferences regarding specific things and all of that is coherent. You can have multiple people have a preference for vanilla over chocolate , but from that doesn't follow that their preference is objective. So yes, people who advocate for certain actions and are subjectivits have a belief that other people share some of their preferences as well. Again this comes back to the point about how much of those logical entailments are you aware of and how well you can evaluate that action according to your preferences. There will be times when it is more foggy, cause you don't see all the second , third ... order effects of your actions, but there will be other times when it is more clear and more direct so that you can make a clear decision about it. Answering your question - Im not sure, because I haven't done an evaluation yet, but yes it might be the case that after evaluation I come to the conclusion that I should stop driving automobiles, but it is not straightforward at all, because not driving automobilies also have its own consequences. Regarding the "will I stop consuming products that are driven to me by automobiles", Im not sure how I could completely dodge that one given the set of circumstances I have right now. Now lets get to the more fun questioning process, where you give your own moral reasons why you are okay with eating meat.

What you are saying doesn't make much sense and you are making kind of a category error there. Its like someone gives a definition for gravity and you say "but that definition doesn't carry much meaning in the context of colors". - well it doesn't suppose to carry any meaning there. If you accept the subject - object divide you shouldn't have problem grasping the meaning between an objectivits and a subjectivist.

Moral subjectivity does exist you should look up the term You have an idiosyncratic definition for morality that excludes subjetivits and thats why you have a problem grappling with the term 'moral subjectivity'.

You are conflating certain terms with meanings that are differently used in the context of a subjectivist. The moral language in the context of a subjectivist mean different than what those mean to an objectivist. Good just means - aligns with my preferences Wrong just means - doesn't align with my preferences. Yes, no one knows all the logical entailments of their actions and all the logical entailments of their beliefs, but the ones that you are aware of are the ones you can decide to do something about. There is action X that I have the choice to do or to not do. Okay I am aware, that action X produces Y outcome and Y isn't aligned with my preferences therefore I won't do action X.

Hence why the term 'moral subjectivist'. You don't need to prove anything objectively, what you do is that you go into another persons subjectivist bubble and check whether they are consistent with their own moral axioms or whether they even self relflected enough to know what their preferences are, regarding moral actions. Thats one way how the persuasion process can work between 2 subjectivists.

It is in the context of subjectivity. Morality is just about what you ought to do and that ought can be grounded in any set of values and that set of values can be your prefences in the case of a subjectivist

No, you still have preferences