DanArmak comments on Utilons vs. Hedons - Less Wrong

28 Post author: Psychohistorian 10 August 2009 07:20PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (112)
Tags: morality

Comments (112)

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

Comment author: SforSingularity 11 August 2009 01:45:07PM *  14 points [-]

Let's try a hypothetical to illustrate the difference between experiential and value utility. An employee of Omega, LLC,1 offers you a deal to absolutely double your hedons but kill five people in, say, rural China, then wipe your memory of the deal.

This example is hardly hypothetical. According to GiveWell, you can save the life of one African person for $200 - $1000.

$200-$1,000 per life saved

Almost everyone has spent $5000 on things that they didn't need - for example a new car as opposed to a second hand one, a refurbishment of a room in the house, a family holiday. $5000 comes nowhere close to "doubling your hedons" - in fact it probably hardly makes a dent. Furthermore, almost everyone is aware of this fact, but we conveniently don't pay any attention to it, and our subconscious minds don't remind us about it because the deaths in Africa are remote and impersonal.

Since I know of very few people who spend literally all their spare money on saving lives at $1000 per life, and almost everyone would honestly claim that they would pay $200 - 1000 to save someone from a painful death, it is fair to say that people pretty universally don't maximize "utilons".

Comment deleted 11 August 2009 04:42:32PM [-]
Comment author: SforSingularity 11 August 2009 08:30:25PM 6 points [-]

If there is evidence that there are ways to permanently improve conditions to that extent for that cheap

This is intriguing, but what if the main indirect cause of death in Africa is overpopulation?

I am not an expert on development in Africa, but my guess is that there is no single cause to the overall problem. Africa's population density is 26 people per km^2 source, whereas the EU's population density is 114 people per km^2 Source. Thus it is probably the case that Africa could easily sustain its current population if it were more economically developed.

Reducing the population artificially, whether by force or by education wouldn't make the problem magically go away, though it may help as part of an overall strategy.

If one is interested in charitable projects to improve overall African standards of living, take a look at the Copenhagen Consensus. Improvements in infrastructure, peacekeeping, health and womens' education are all needed.

Comment author: MichaelBishop 15 August 2009 10:01:58PM 1 point [-]

I think the main reason food aid has been criticized is that it is often implemented in a way which a) empowers dictators or b) reduces profit opportunities for for African farmers and food distributors which reduces their incentive to invest in improving their farming or other businesses.

IOW, over-population is not the source of the negative externalities.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit