orthonormal comments on Ethics as a black box function - Less Wrong

11 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 22 September 2009 05:25PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (30)
Tags: philosophy ethics utilitarianism

Comments (30)

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

Comment author: orthonormal 22 September 2009 09:25:08PM *  1 point [-]

But even then, if e.g. my friends have children not in the set of 20, it's still not clear that all of the twenty would prefer the second option!

Wow, you really don't search very hard for hypotheticals. It's not actually very hard to come up with situations that have this sort of conflict. E.g. a general sending a specialized squad (including several friends) on an extremely risky mission that only they could carry out, if the alternatives would cause much more risk to the army as a whole. (Not an entirely fabricated situation, although that example doesn't fit perfectly.)

Comment author: SilasBarta 22 September 2009 09:36:06PM 0 points [-]

Okay, fair point; I was interpreting the situation as being one in which you betray a friend for the benefit of others; in the example you gave, the sacrifice asked of them is part of the duties they signed up for and not an abrogation of friendship.

But I don't think your example works either: it benefited Americans at the expense of Japanese. That's not trading "friends' utilities for higher other utilities"; its' trading "friends' utilities for some higher and some lower other utilities".

Now, if you want to introduce some paperclip maximizers who value a few more paperclips to a billion human lives...

Comment author: orthonormal 23 September 2009 02:20:18AM *  0 points [-]

But I don't think your example works either: it benefited Americans at the expense of Japanese. That's not trading "friends' utilities for higher other utilities"; its' trading "friends' utilities for some higher and some lower other utilities".

When estimated by humans, utilities aren't objective. I'm pretty sure that if you asked Col. Doolittle in those terms, he'd be of the opinion that U(US winning Pacific Theater) >> U(Japan winning Pacific Theater), taking the whole world into account; thus he probably experienced conflict between his loyalty to friends and his calculation of optimal action. (Of course he's apt to be biased in said calculation, but that's beside the point. There exists some possible conflict in which a similar calculation is unambiguously justified by the evidence.)

Comment author: SilasBarta 23 September 2009 02:29:52AM 0 points [-]

Of course he's apt to be biased in said calculation, but that's beside the point. There exists some possible conflict in which a similar calculation is unambiguously justified by the evidence.

Then I'm sure you can cite that instead. If it's hard to find, well, that's my point exactly.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit