Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

ChrisHibbert comments on The Least Convenient Possible World - Less Wrong

131 Post author: Yvain 14 March 2009 02:11AM

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

Comments (132)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: ChrisHibbert 14 March 2009 06:43:24PM 7 points [-]

I like the phrase "precedent utilitarianism". It sounds to utilitarians like you're joining their camp, while actually pointing out that you're taking a long-term view of utility, which they usually refuse to do. The important ingredient is paying attention to incentives, which is really the rational response to most questions about morality. Many choices which seem "fairer", "more just", or whose alternatives provoke a disgust response don't take the long-term view into account. If we go around sacrificing every lonely stranger to the highest benefit of others nearby, no one is safe. It's a tragedy that all those people are sick and will die if they don't get help, but we don't make the world less tragic by sacrificing one to save ten every chance we get.

Comment author: alex_zag_al 17 November 2011 07:02:20AM 2 points [-]

Actually, we would all be more safe, because we'd be in less danger from organ failure. We are each more likely to be one of the "others nearby" than the "lonely stranger".

Comment author: Desrtopa 28 February 2013 02:08:59AM 1 point [-]

I like the phrase "precedent utilitarianism". It sounds to utilitarians like you're joining their camp, while actually pointing out that you're taking a long-term view of utility, which they usually refuse to do

On what basis would you say it's the case that utilitarians usually refuse to take a long-term view of utility?

Comment author: ChrisHibbert 03 March 2013 06:32:36AM 0 points [-]

When I've argued with people who called themselves utilitarian, they seemed to want to make trade-offs among immediately visible options. I'm not going to try to argue that I have population statistics, or know what the "proper" definition of a utilitarian is. Do you believe that some other terminology or behavior better characterizes those called "utilitarians"?

Comment author: Desrtopa 03 March 2013 02:07:51PM *  1 point [-]

Well, in my experience people who self identify as utilitarians don't appear to be any more shortsighted in terms of real life moral quandaries than people who don't so self identify.

I don't think it's the case that utilitarians tend to be shortsighted, just that people in general tend to be; if non-utilitarians tend to choose a less shortsighted action in a constructed moral dilemma, it's not usually due to consciously taking a long view.

When I was in college, a professional philosopher once visited and gave a seminar, where she raised the traveler-at-a-hospital scenario as an argument against utilitarianism (simply on the basis that killing the traveler defies our moral intuitions.) I responded that realistically, given human nature, if doctors tended to do this, then because people aren't effective risk assessers, people would tend to avoid hospitals for fear of being harvested, to the point that the practice would probably be doing more harm than good. She had never heard or thought of this argument before, and found it a compelling reason not to harvest the traveler from a utilitarian point of view. So as a non utilitarian, it doesn't seem that she was any more likely to look at questions of utility from a long view, she was just more willing to let moral intuitions control her decision, which sometimes has the same effect.