| > should > According to me. > I could probably go on, but that would be gratuitous This is a problem for your argument. You could go on indefinitely, but it would never move your argument forward by a non-zero value. Are you familiar with "is vs ought"? In AI research we know that an AI can accumulate many "is" forms of intelligence, like "the car is red", or whatever. Other "is" conclusions can be derived from the existing collection of "is" assumptions. But an "ought" can not be derived from "is" statements. An "ought" can only be justified if you assume some prior "ought", which is a non-trivial problem for AI, and for people making claims about what someone else ought to do. So you can't say it "is" hot outside, so therefore I "ought" to drink some water, unless you assume some prior "ought". Like, "you ought to not want to die of dehydration, and it is hot outside, therefore you ought to drink some water". But should I ought to not want to die of dehydration? Maybe, but only if you assume another ought. Your ought claim about what people should do if they are capable depends on other people's opinions about what ought to be, whether it's what "educated people" think ought to be, or what "moral people" think ought to be, or what King Solomon said ought to be. But those are all arbitrary opinions, which can't be justified without assuming additional arbitrary opinions. It's ought all the way down. Meaning, each person has to decide what's important to them, and it ends up being rather arbitrary in the end. |
Are you familiar with the concept of diminishing marginal return on investment?