TobyBartels comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 3 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Unnamed 30 August 2010 05:37AM

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

Comments (560)

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

Comment author: TobyBartels 28 September 2010 08:21:25AM 3 points [-]

For Harry, is morality about intentions or consequences? Maybe he doesn't care whether Dumbledore did it deliberately; if anybody is so careless as to do such a thing accidentally, then they're an enemy.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 October 2010 05:56:33AM *  5 points [-]

For Harry, is morality about intentions or consequences? Maybe he doesn't care whether Dumbledore did it deliberately; if anybody is so careless as to do such a thing accidentally, then they're an enemy.

It's hard to tell. Harry's morality seems to be somewhat ad-hoc in nature. For example, he declares that sometimes killing is necessary but torture can never be, which rules out being purely consequentialist but is hardly typical of deontological ethical frameworks either (but fairly normal for standard human thinking).

Even so it would surprise me if Harry didn't distinguish at least partially on intent. Completely not caring about intent, well, just "doesn't seem like his style". I observe, for example, that Harry judges Dumbledore for sharing gossip to Severus with the intent of setting Voldemort after Harry's family. When looking at raw causal interactions there are no doubt countless trivial actions that have the consequence of really bad things happening. Yet Harry singles Dumbledore's (alleged) conniving out purely based on the fact that he intended it to lead to particular a chain of events.

Comment author: thomblake 07 October 2010 01:45:08PM 0 points [-]

he declares that sometimes killing is necessary but torture can never be, which rules out being purely consequentialist

If you don't take that statement to have the force of logic behind it, there's no conflict with consequentialism. It could be that Harry believes that there is no benefit to come from torture, while there are obvious benefits to come from removing a dangerous person from the world.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 October 2010 05:05:55PM *  1 point [-]

It could be that Harry believes that there is no benefit to come from torture, while there are obvious benefits to come from removing a dangerous person from the world.

I gave Harry the benefit of the doubt on that one by inferring that he is slightly idealistic rather than blatantly stupid. ie. A general ethical ruling against torture is reasonable while believing that there are no possible instances in which torture could provide net consequentialist benefits would be insane even for Harry.

Comment author: wnoise 08 October 2010 05:16:04AM 2 points [-]

Possible Mindkilling Warning.

While this is certainly true, human biases mean that those with the power to torture will self-justify its use far more than is optimal. When promulgating a rule for when torture is acceptable, "never" really does seem the best choice.

Yeah, "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don't do it to anyone unless you'd also slash their tires.". I think slashing the tires of torturers is more than justified.

Comment author: wedrifid 08 October 2010 05:39:20AM 1 point [-]

Yeah, "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don't do it to anyone unless you'd also slash their tires.". I think slashing the tires of torturers is more than justified.

Cute, but you're actually slashing the metaphorical tires of the non-torturers while the torturer's tires are (evidently) slash resistant.