Jiro 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (343)

Tags: willpower

Comments (343)

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: Jiro 20 November 2013 03:37:53PM * 0 points [-]

"In the intended sense" is not a useful description compared to actually writing down a description. It also may not necessarily even be consistent.

Furthermore, it's clear that most people consider "if (I am convicted of robbery) then put me in jail else nothing" to be a universal law in the intended sense, yet that gives different results for different people (one result for robbers, another result for non-robbers) doing the same thing (nothing, in either case).

Comment author: TheAncientGeek comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: Desrtopa 20 November 2013 05:34:36PM 1 point [-]

It's also possible to completely fail to explain things to intelligent people by assuming that their intelligence ought to be a sufficient asset to make your explanations comprehensible to them. If people are consistently telling you that your explanations are unclear or don't make sense, you should take very, very seriously the likelihood that, at the least in your efforts to explain yourself, you are doing something wrong.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 November 2013 05:57:53PM 1 point [-]

Which bit of " pretty much the .same as fairness" were you having trouble with?

Do you think "all robbers should be jailed except TheAncientGeek" is a fair rule?

What rule would count as non universal for you?

Comment author: Desrtopa 20 November 2013 06:11:22PM * 0 points [-]

The "fairness" part. Falling back on another insufficiently specified intuitive concept doesn't help explain this one. Is it fair to jail a man who steals a loaf of bread from a rich man so his nephew won't starve? A simple yes or no isn't enough here, we don't all have identical intuitive senses of fairness, so what we need isn't the output for any particular question, but the process that generates the outputs.

I don't think "all robbers should be jailed except TheAncientGeek" is a fair rule, but that doesn't advance the discussion from where we were already.

Where a universal rule would be one that anyone could check any time for relevant output (both "never steal" and "if nsheppard, steal, if else, do nothing) would be examples, one which only produces output for a specific individual or in a specific instance (for example "nsheppard can steal," or "on January 3rd, 2014, it is okay to steal.") These would be specific case rules.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 November 2013 06:37:23PM * -1 points [-]

The "fairness" part. Falling back on another insufficiently specified intuitive concept doesn't help explain this on.

It is not an intuitiojn about what is true, it is a concept that helps to explain another concept.,If you let it.

I don't think "all robbers should be jailed except TheAncientGeek" is a fair rule, but that doesn't advance the discussion from where we were already.

Then why do you think you can build explicit exceptions into rules and still deem them universal? I think you can't because I think, roughly speaking, universal=fair.

Where a universal rule would be one that anyone could check any time for relevant output (both "never steal" and "if nsheppard, steal, if else, do nothing) would be examples, one which only produces output for a specific individual or in a specific instance (for example "nsheppard can steal," or "on January 3rd, 2014, it is okay to steal.") These would be specific case rules.

Such a rule is useless for moral guidance. But intelligent people think the CI is useful for moral guidance. That should have told you that your guess about what "universal" means, in this context, is wrong. You should have discarded that interpretation and sought one that does not make the CI obviously foolish.

Comment author: Jiro 20 November 2013 07:43:17PM 2 points [-]

Such a rule is useless for moral guidance. But intelligent people think the CI is useful for moral guidance.

"Intelligent people" also think you shouldn't switch in the common version of the Monty Hall problem. The whole point of this argument is to point out that the CI doesn't make sense as given and therefore, that "intelligent people" are wrong about it.

That should have told you that your guess about what "universal" means, in this context, is wrong.

No, it tells me that people who think the CI is useful have not thought through the implications. It's easy to say that rules like the ones given above can't be made "universal", but the same people who wouldn't think such rules can be made universal are willing to make other rules of similar form universal (why is a rule that says that only Jiro can rob not "universal", but one which says that only non-minors can drink alcohol is?)

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 November 2013 08:00:00PM -2 points [-]

None of the comments have not anywhere near the .CI as given. Kant did not define the .CI as an accessible function.

I have already answered your second point.

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

Article Navigation

Comments (343)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (343)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login