> And smart people usually have moral convictions.

Are you sure you don't just like the moral convictions and so engage in trait bundling?

Moral knowledge doesn't really exist. I mean you can have personal views on it, but the lack of falsifiability makes me suspect it wouldn't be well-correlated with intelligence.

Smarter people can discuss more layered or chic moral theories as they relate to theoretical AI, maybe.

> Moral knowledge doesn't really exist.

If that is the case, then why should you or anyone prefer to believe your claim that moral knowledge doesn’t exist over the contrary?

Different kinds of claims, it's not self-referential

> Different kinds of claims

How so?

If I claim that one should prefer the claim "moral knowledge doesn't exist" over its contrary, then I am making a moral claim. That would make it self-refuting.

There is no fact-value dichotomy.

And one more thing...

> the lack of falsifiability

Is falsifiability falsifiable? If all credible claims must be falsifiable, then where does that leave us with the criterion of falsifiability (which is problematic even part from this particular case, as anyone who has done any serious reading in the philosophy of science knows).

I'm smart and you can buy my morals. So what?

True, many smart people will gladly (or even begrudgingly) do evil for money. That's why there is so much suffering in the world, because of people like you.

Is ad tech and the like really causing so much suffering? The government work, mass surveilance, killing people etc. doesn't actually pay that much, typically.

I think ad tech is probably the single most destructive technology of the new millennium. The shift toward "engagement at all costs" business strategies is basically the root cause of societies current political polarization. Engagement bait cultivates fear and rage in the populace to get clicks. We are now seeing the consequences of shoving ads that sow fear, anger, doubt and inadequacy into peoples faces 24/7. This doesn't even touch on the fact that mass surveillance is only possible because of the technologies forged by the Ad tech industry.

Well I'm not sure I entirely believe this myself, but it seems easy enough to argue that this is progress of a sort.

The West assumes pure democracy as the final form of government that we are all convergently evolving towards. But if this form of government or society is not robust to the kinds of things you're talking about, should it not suffer the consequences and be adapted or flushed for our long-term betterment?

It seems a bit like saying the French Revolution was the most destructive thing to happen in the history of France. Sure, in the short term. But it also paved the way for modern liberal democracy.

That’s fair enough. I wouldn’t say I’m happy about needing to live through interesting times, but if we make it out the other end maybe something better will come of it.

So what, indeed (not sure what you mean)

Those people get paid so much anyway that they don't have to compromise their morals.

I guess that's not the case for you and me

so do oil and tobacco people, no?

> And smart people usually have moral convictions.

Dumb people have moral convictions. Smart people see the nuance.