= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on Revisiting torture vs. dust specks - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (64)
If the utility function for torture were negative infinity:
et cetera.
In other words, I don't think this is a rational moral stance.
RobinZ, perhaps my understanding of the term utility differs from yours. In finance & economics, utility is a scalar (i.e., a real number) function u of wealth w, subject to:
u(w) is non-decreasing; u(w) is concave downward.
(Negative) singularities to the left are admissable.
I confess I don't know about the history of how the utility concept has been generalized to encompass pain and pleasure. It seems a multi-valued utility function might work better than a scalar function.
The criteria you mention don't exclude a negative singularity to the left, but when you attempt to optimize for maximum utility, the singularity causes problems. I was describing a few.
Edit: I mean to say: in the utilitarianism-utility function, which has multiple inputs.
I can envision a vector utility function u(x) = (a, b), where the ordering is on the first term a, unless there is a tie at negative infinity; in that case the ordering is on the second term b. b is -1 for one person-hour of minimal torture, and it's multiplicative in persons, duration and severity >= 1. (Pain infliction of less than 1 times minimal torture severity is not considered torture.) This solves your second objection, and the other two are features of this 'Just say no to torture' utility function.
Quote: -any choice with a nonzero probability of leading to torture gains infinite disutility, -any torture of any duration has the same disutility - infinite, -the criteria for torture vs. non-torture become rigid - something which is almost torture is literally infinitely better than something which is barely torture,
But every choice has a nonzero probability of leading to torture. Your proposed moral stance amounts to "minimize the probability-times-intensity of torture", to which a reasonable answer might be, "set off a nuclear holocaust annihilating all life on the planet".
(And the distinction between torture and non-torture is - at least in the abstract - fuzzy. How much pain does it have to be to be torture?)
In real life or in this example? I don't believe this is true in real life.
There is nothing you can do that makes it impossible that there will be torture. Therefore, every choice has a nonzero probability of being followed by torture. I'm not sure whether "leading to torture" is the best way to phrase this, though.
What he said. Also, if you are evaluating the rectitude of each possible choice by its consequences (i.e. using your utility function), it doesn't matter if you actually (might) cause the torture or if it just (possibly) occurs within your light cone - you have to count it.
Are you referring to me? I'm a she.
headdesk
What Alicorn said, yes. Damnit, I thought I was doing pretty good at avoiding the pronoun problems...
I believe you should count choices that can measurably change the probability of torture. If you can't measure a change in the probability of torture, you should count that as no change. I believe this view more closely corresponds to current physical models than the infinite butterflies concept.
But if torture has infinite weight, even any change - even one too small to measure - has either infinite utility or infinite disutility. Which makes the situation even worse.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that you should measure it this way, I'm arguing that you don't. Mathematically, the implications of your proposal do not correspond to the value judgements you endorse, and therefore the proposal doesn't correspond to your actual algorithm, and should be abandoned.
See Absolute certainty.
Proof left to the reader?
If I am to choose between getting a glass of water or a cup of coffee, I am quite confident that neither choice will lead to torture. You certainly cannot prove that either choice will lead to torture. Absolute certainty has nothing to do with it, in my opinion.
You either have absolute certainty in the statement that neither choice will lead to torture, or you allow some probability of it being incorrect.