Hacker News Reader

Comment by ttoinou | Hacker News Reader

So you want to be kind only for utilitarian motives, not because it’s a good thing in principle ?

Good that does not sustain itself is quite sad - you can see the efforts going down the drain. Aligning good and sustainable (utilitarian) is worthwhile imho.

That's not a very kind interpretation of the parent comment - a bit reductionist, don't you think?

I personally don't believe it's possible to "give out" kindness, compassion, friendship solely from an utilitarian position. It would either be fake, and people feel the difference and the desired effect does not follow, or your utilitarian position is a front, in order to justify being kind to unkind people around you judging you.

It sounds like you're saying it's far better to be kind for altruistic reasons. Is that right?

Some persons (me included) suspect that humans rarely if ever act with true altruism; that it's actually a nicely dressed up form of self-serving hedonism.

And so for us, the challenge becomes how to get ourselves to act good / kind despite that. One way is to find ways to intentionally tie kind behavior to our own self-interest.

gp is refering to a morality that is deontologically grounded, not just one based on altruism. Here it is not necessarily for one "reason" or the other, but rather acting the way some ideal person would in a perfect world (famously for Kant within the "kingdom of ends" where every person is an "end to themselves").

It's a rather huge theoretical distinction that at least in the West goes all the way back!

In general, one shouldn't confuse ethics itself with the whatever one might think is the most viable ethical system! It isnt a product to market. Utilitarianism is no less silly the anything else, and has its own ridiculous edge cases and all that.

Thanks for introducing me to the concept of deontological ethics!

It's been fascinating to read up on something about which my thoughts were only half-formed.

What does it mean for a thing to be good in principle?

I don't understand why they got down voted because this question has a rather obvious answer. Do you motivate a person to behave a specific way because it's instrumentally good for a higher purpose, or because the behavior itself is inherently valuable? That's a perfectly coherent, it makes a real distinction, and it's a legitimate question in this context.

fun experiment: let's try to have the most charitable interpretation of this comment ^

My best is: they are saying it is worth taking a step back and making a prioritized list of our values. If we do this, we may place "being kind" over "being productive"

I think their warning here is about: what happens in a situation where being kind is NOT productive? Will you just drop it?

I think I agree with the broad strokes of this. My rebuttal is: the comment above this was just pointing out, for people who do not value kindness over productivity, that they are not in opposition. That you don't have to pick one or the other. You can have both.

We can get mad and turn away from people who do not share our values/priorities. Or we can show them ways that our value systems do not clash and it can be win win

Great sum up ! You can have both, but for me being productive is more important than not offending others

No.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com