jimrandomh comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - Less Wrong

236 Post author: Yvain 30 May 2010 09:16PM

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

Comments (343)

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

Comment author: jimrandomh 01 June 2010 04:55:51PM 3 points [-]

When a view like this is on the table consequentialism starts to look pretty empty. (Just take the value function that ranks outcomes solely based on how many lies you personally tell.)

Consequentialist value systems are a huge class; of course not all consequentialist value systems are praiseworthy! But there are terrible agent-neutral value systems, too, including conventional value systems with an extra minus sign, Clippy values, and plenty of others.

Here's a non-agent-neutral consequentialist value that you might find more praiseworthy: prefer the well-being of friends and family over strangers.

Comment author: utilitymonster 01 June 2010 05:31:54PM 0 points [-]

Consequentialist value systems are a huge class; of course not all consequentialist value systems are praiseworthy! But there are terrible agent-neutral value systems, too, including conventional value systems with an extra minus sign, Clippy values, and plenty of others.

Yeah, the objection wasn't supposed to be that because there was an implausible consequentialist view on that definition of "consequentialism", it was a bad definition. The objection was that pretty much any maximizing view could count as consequentialist, so the distinction isn't really worth making.