Psychologists I know would call a person whose behavior is consistent with his self description is integrated rather than moral. "Integrated" is usually a good quality but not if someone happily describes himself in sociopathic terms. Trump is, in my non-professional opinion, an amoral, narcissistic sociopath.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:24 AM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, it was long. I only got through half of it during my workout this > morning. > > I suppose it's right to say that the normative definition of moral would > exclude Trump (or people like him). But if we stuck to your idea that a > particular morality be *expressible*. (FWIW, I think the extra qualifier > "independently of oneself" is redundant, at least a little. Any expression > has to be at least somewhat objective ... spoken word causes air > vibrations, video recordings of someone talking, written documents, etc.) > > So, there's a hot debate at the moment in machine learning about the > different usage patterns for interpretable ML vs explainable ML, whereas > "explainable" is weaker in that it doesn't give any direct access to the > mechanism, only describes it somewhat ... "simulates" it. Interpretable ML > is supposedly a kind of transparency so that you can see inside, have > access to the actual mechanism that executes when the algorithm makes a > prediction. > > Targeting your idea that a moral code must be expressible, do you mean a > perfect, transparent expression of the mechanism a moral actor uses? Or do > you mean simulable ... such that we can build relatively high fidelity > *models* of the mechanism inside the actor? > > On 8/10/21 10:11 AM, Russ Abbott wrote: > > The Envy video looked like a lot of fun, but it was too long for me to > sit through it. > > > > Regarding morality, my guess is that it's not predictability that leads > people to consider someone moral, it's acting according to a framework that > can be expressed independently of oneself. Society-wide utilitarianism > would be fine; "someone much like Trump [who] says they're an exploitative, > gaming, solipsist" and then behaves in a way consistent with that > description, would not be considered moral no matter how consistently their > behavior simply optimized short-term personal benefits. After all, to take > your own Trump example, I doubt that many people would characterize Trump > as moral. > > -- > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/