I enjoyed the talk and admired his good use of clarity when talking about the problems. However, the counter to clarity is that it might be a bit too clean for the real world, and that was apparent when answering the questions about copyright at the end.
I realize that pg wasn't particularly prepared to be dealing with questions unrelated to the talk, but it was the first time I've seen him not easily handle questions with grace. His responses came off as glib and eventually he had to qualify and edit his previous statements to provide somewhat of a satisfactory response.
It's easy to over-believe ideas that are put forth with clarity and match your natural disposition towards clean logic and historical examples. Though pg has intriguing and useful perspectives, I encourage people to study these problems far more in-depth before forming a personal opinion.
On a somewhat related note, it was alarming that pg didn't have a clear moral position when asked about his decision-making process. It's fine for the young and uninfluential to "wing it" when it comes to moral decision-making, but seems irresponsible for someone with his level of power in Silicon Valley.
"Morals" are an excuse people use to try to impose their personal interest over others. Honest people use reasoning instead. I'm glad pg is open and honest enough to not include "morality" discussion in his decision. And not even be ashamed to try to hide it in public, as a populist politician would. That got him some points from me.
Morality is a lot deeper than you're making it out to be. Please don't straw man my argument to mean phony, superficial "Morals." I'd suggest starting with a survey of moral philosophy.
For the morality question, if I was PG, I would've just said that my passion is to provide -you- the user/the world with what you want, so if there's no demand for it, then I won't build it.
Entering into a discussion about objective morality is a dead end.
> it was alarming that pg didn't have a clear moral position when asked about his decision-making process.
I would prefer it if people didn't force pg to qualify his statements like a politician.
Obviously he could add "of course, this is just a good idea as long as the expected utility of the humanity at large is greater with it than without it on a reasonably long time line." but it would just be an empty phrase.
We need powerful people to be more open like pg, what we don't need is more people putting on a PR-mask just for the sake of seeming Responsible, Serious and Altruistic.
I never said his morality had to be "Responsible, Serious and Altruistic." It looks like you're assuming that morality is a simple construct used only by politicians for deception. In reality, almost every significant, powerful figure I've read about has some guidelines to his or her behavior, even if it's a pluralistic framework.
Additionally, it was strange that you projected your own Utilitarian belief system onto pg. I've never read or heard him articulate his moral position; he alludes to one in "Things you can't say," but obviously doesn't say it.
I think a lot of the HN crowd is very good at examining hard subjects like science but is under-developed in the humanities. That's an obvious statement due to the nature of this forum, but it doesn't hurt as a reminder that maybe there are unknown unknowns to the human condition you may have not considered.
> I've never read or heard him articulate his moral position; he alludes to one in "Things you can't say," but obviously doesn't say it.
Funny side note: moral positions, in the abstract, aren't usually things you can't say. They usually sound eminently reasonable, until you work out the consequences. This is more or less the history of ethics.
The "Responsible, Serious and Altruistic" bit was a bit of a straw man I must admit. My point was basically that:
1) if pg doesn't have some well thought out and articulated perspective on moral questions, that's OK - he's not a priest
2) Saying it's alarming is basically pushing him and people like him into taking a (probably artificial) position for the sake of taking one.
3) Just because one is powerful doesn't mean one has to be a role model in all areas of life. This is unnecessary pressure on an individual who hasn't asked for it - he's basically a sort of VC, he isn't running for president - and I don't see anything good coming out of it.
I chose a utilitarian belief system as an example because it felt like the most non-controversial one to make a point. Incidentally, I don't subscribe to it.
Agreed about humanities, but I don't really see the connection to your OP.
I admire your balanced temper in your response (as my earlier was a bit charged), but I can't say I'm swayed.
Overall, I think pg was just thrown off-guard by the question and could probably come up with a more adequate answer off-stage, particularly because he has a background in philosophy. I was using him, wrongly, as an example of the technocratic tendency to not consider morality in decision-making. However, I'll continue here with a response to your objections pretending he really is a less well-rounded VC:
I think your responses are emblematic of a current societal tendency to be easy on leadership and powerful people, because they're "just human." I don't agree with that tendency to not hold leaders accountable to a higher standard, and I don't think it's right for a person with that much power to not have a clear moral position on who he or she does business with. We can all disagree on what we think is right, but I think there are many who have been led to believe that they simply can't expect more out of certain people because it's not "fair." I'm merely providing a counter-opinion to that.
About the humanities, that was said out of frustration that you/others may not have been exposed to moral frameworks outside of the traditional religious and political tie-ins. It was an incorrect sweeping generalization, but regardless, it doesn't hurt anyone to be reminded of these subjects now and again :)
Comments
I enjoyed the talk and admired his good use of clarity when talking about the problems. However, the counter to clarity is that it might be a bit too clean for the real world, and that was apparent when answering the questions about copyright at the end.
I realize that pg wasn't particularly prepared to be dealing with questions unrelated to the talk, but it was the first time I've seen him not easily handle questions with grace. His responses came off as glib and eventually he had to qualify and edit his previous statements to provide somewhat of a satisfactory response.
It's easy to over-believe ideas that are put forth with clarity and match your natural disposition towards clean logic and historical examples. Though pg has intriguing and useful perspectives, I encourage people to study these problems far more in-depth before forming a personal opinion.
On a somewhat related note, it was alarming that pg didn't have a clear moral position when asked about his decision-making process. It's fine for the young and uninfluential to "wing it" when it comes to moral decision-making, but seems irresponsible for someone with his level of power in Silicon Valley.
"Morals" are an excuse people use to try to impose their personal interest over others. Honest people use reasoning instead. I'm glad pg is open and honest enough to not include "morality" discussion in his decision. And not even be ashamed to try to hide it in public, as a populist politician would. That got him some points from me.
Morality is a lot deeper than you're making it out to be. Please don't straw man my argument to mean phony, superficial "Morals." I'd suggest starting with a survey of moral philosophy.
For the morality question, if I was PG, I would've just said that my passion is to provide -you- the user/the world with what you want, so if there's no demand for it, then I won't build it.
Entering into a discussion about objective morality is a dead end.
That's fine, but he didn't even articulate that.
> it was alarming that pg didn't have a clear moral position when asked about his decision-making process.
I would prefer it if people didn't force pg to qualify his statements like a politician.
Obviously he could add "of course, this is just a good idea as long as the expected utility of the humanity at large is greater with it than without it on a reasonably long time line." but it would just be an empty phrase.
We need powerful people to be more open like pg, what we don't need is more people putting on a PR-mask just for the sake of seeming Responsible, Serious and Altruistic.
I never said his morality had to be "Responsible, Serious and Altruistic." It looks like you're assuming that morality is a simple construct used only by politicians for deception. In reality, almost every significant, powerful figure I've read about has some guidelines to his or her behavior, even if it's a pluralistic framework.
Additionally, it was strange that you projected your own Utilitarian belief system onto pg. I've never read or heard him articulate his moral position; he alludes to one in "Things you can't say," but obviously doesn't say it.
I think a lot of the HN crowd is very good at examining hard subjects like science but is under-developed in the humanities. That's an obvious statement due to the nature of this forum, but it doesn't hurt as a reminder that maybe there are unknown unknowns to the human condition you may have not considered.
> I've never read or heard him articulate his moral position; he alludes to one in "Things you can't say," but obviously doesn't say it.
Funny side note: moral positions, in the abstract, aren't usually things you can't say. They usually sound eminently reasonable, until you work out the consequences. This is more or less the history of ethics.
The "Responsible, Serious and Altruistic" bit was a bit of a straw man I must admit. My point was basically that:
1) if pg doesn't have some well thought out and articulated perspective on moral questions, that's OK - he's not a priest
2) Saying it's alarming is basically pushing him and people like him into taking a (probably artificial) position for the sake of taking one.
3) Just because one is powerful doesn't mean one has to be a role model in all areas of life. This is unnecessary pressure on an individual who hasn't asked for it - he's basically a sort of VC, he isn't running for president - and I don't see anything good coming out of it.
I chose a utilitarian belief system as an example because it felt like the most non-controversial one to make a point. Incidentally, I don't subscribe to it.
Agreed about humanities, but I don't really see the connection to your OP.
Here's a highly related essay by pg, by the way: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
I admire your balanced temper in your response (as my earlier was a bit charged), but I can't say I'm swayed.
Overall, I think pg was just thrown off-guard by the question and could probably come up with a more adequate answer off-stage, particularly because he has a background in philosophy. I was using him, wrongly, as an example of the technocratic tendency to not consider morality in decision-making. However, I'll continue here with a response to your objections pretending he really is a less well-rounded VC:
I think your responses are emblematic of a current societal tendency to be easy on leadership and powerful people, because they're "just human." I don't agree with that tendency to not hold leaders accountable to a higher standard, and I don't think it's right for a person with that much power to not have a clear moral position on who he or she does business with. We can all disagree on what we think is right, but I think there are many who have been led to believe that they simply can't expect more out of certain people because it's not "fair." I'm merely providing a counter-opinion to that.
About the humanities, that was said out of frustration that you/others may not have been exposed to moral frameworks outside of the traditional religious and political tie-ins. It was an incorrect sweeping generalization, but regardless, it doesn't hurt anyone to be reminded of these subjects now and again :)