= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shokwave comments on Deontological Decision Theory and The Solution to Morality - 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 (91)
I feel like the difference between "No matter what, this person will die" and "No matter what, one person will die" is very subtle. It seems like you could arrange thought experiments that trample this distinction. Would that pose a problem?
I don't remember the details, but while I was at the SIAI house I was presented some very elaborate thought experiments that attempted something like this. I derived the answer my system gives and announced it and everyone made outraged noises, but they also make outraged noises when I answered standard trolley problems, so I'm not sure to what extent I should consider that a remarkable feature of those thought experiments. Do you have one in mind you'd like me to reply to?
Not really. I am mildly opposed to asking trolley problem questions. I mostly just observed that, in my brain, there wasn't much difference between:
Set of 5 people where either 1 dies or 5 die.
Set of 6 people where either 1 dies or 5 die.
I wasn't sure exactly what work the word 'unsalvageable' was doing: was it that this person cannot in principle be saved, so er life is 'not counted', and really you have
Set of 4 people where either none die or 4 die?
Yes, that's the idea.
I see. My brain automatically does the math for me and sees 1 or 5 as equivalent to none or four. I think it assumes that human lives are fungible or something.
That's a good brain. Pat it or something.