= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
randallsquared comments on Science: Do It Yourself - 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 (205)
Perhaps "fundamentally" was too opaque. We both want a cookie, but it's not a top level goal for either of us. Given that, either of us might be argued out of wanting a cookie by rational means. If acquiring a cookie were a top level goal for both of us, and there were no other ways to acquire cookies than to take the last cookie, then we would each be evil in the value system of the other.
I hope I've been clearer. :)
A paperclipper has a top level goal that clashes with my own, but I wouldn't call it evil.
If there was a species of aliens whose top level goal was the extermination of all happiness in the universe, I would call that evil.
Evil is not just the clashing of goals. I would probably define it as "the intentional pursuit of disutility".
Or if you want an even more technical description, evil is "a utility function that incorporates a negative factor for the utility of others".
As the paperclipper cares zero for mankind, that's not innately evil. Hatred of others is evil, sadism is evil, spitefulness is evil.