= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Ethics as a black box function - 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 (30)
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...
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.)
Then I'm sure you can cite that instead. If it's hard to find, well, that's my point exactly.