nickernst comments on The Trolley Problem in popular culture: Torchwood Series 3 - Less Wrong

16 Post author: botogol 27 July 2009 10:46PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (86)
Tags: torchwood spoilers

Comments (86)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 August 2009 11:22:46PM 1 point [-]

I missed where Vladimir made that suggestion, though I'm sure others have. You can have an irrational value, if it's really a means and not an end (which is another value), but you don't recognize that, and call the means a value itself. Means to an end can of course be evaluated as rational. If anyone made the suggestion you mention, they probably presumed a single "basic" value of preserving lives, and considered the method of deciding to be a means, but denoted as a value.

(Of course, a value can be both a means and an end, which presents fun new complications...)

Comment author: jwdink 07 August 2009 08:58:11PM *  0 points [-]

I agree generally that this is what an irrational value would mean. However, the presiding implicit assumption was that the utilitarian ends were the correct, and therefore the presiding explicit assumption (or at least, I thought it was presiding... now I can't seem to get anyone to defend it, so maybe not) was that therefore the most efficient means to these particular ends were the most rational.

Maybe I was misunderstanding the presiding assumption, though. It was just stuff like this:

Lesswrongers will be encouraged to learn that the Torchwood characters were rationalists to a man and woman - there was little hesitation in agreeing to the 456's demands.

Or this, in response to a call to "dignity":

How many lives is your dignity worth? Would you be willing to actually kill people for your dignity, or are you only willing to make that transaction if someone else is holding the knife?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 06 August 2009 11:26:18PM 0 points [-]

I think I hear you, but this comment is way confusing.

Comment author: jwdink 08 August 2009 12:21:10AM *  0 points [-]

Haha, we must have very different criteria for "confusing." I found that post very clear, and I've struggled quite a bit with most of your posts. No offense meant, of course: I'm just not very versed in the LW vernacular.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 08 August 2009 12:36:42AM *  0 points [-]

My comments can be confusing, or difficult to get over the wider inferential gaps. In this case I meant that nickernst's comment could just be expressed much more clearly.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit