= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nazgulnarsil comments on Separate morality from free will - 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 (84)
to me, morality means not disastrously/majorly subverting another's utility function for a trivial increase in my own utility.
edit: wish the downvoters would give me some concrete objections.
Do you mean that "not disastrously/majorly subverting another's utility function for a trivial increase in my own utility" is ethical, in the sense that this is a safety measure so that you don't accidentally cause net negative utility with regard to your own utility function (as a result of limited computing power)?
Or do you mean that you assign negative utility to causing someone else negative utility according to their utility function?
causing negative utility is not the same as disastrously subverting their utility function.
It's strange that you haven't explained what you mean by 'disastrously subverting'.
slipping the pill that makes you want to kill people into gandhi's drink without his knowledge is the simplest example.
Now I just think it's odd that you have "refraining from non-consensual modification of others' wants/values" as the sole meaning of "morality".
The "it is strange", "I think it is odd" style of debate struck me as disingenuous.
Okay, "stupid" if you prefer :)
Better. :)
I was really just annoyed at the lack of clarity in that statement. I could have just said so, in fewer words (or said nothing).
Your critique was justified, and your less presumptuous "struck me as" made it easier for me to think rather than argue.
If we're just talking about rhetoric here, I prefer "odd" to "stupid" but would prefer "wrong" or "unjustified" (depending on which one you actually mean) to either.
That strikes me as a low bar. Would you disastrously subvert someone else's utility function to majorly increase yours?
depends. no hard and fast rule. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiFKm6l5-vE
"Subversion" seems unspecific. Does that mean, would I go back in time and use my amazing NLP powers or whatever to convince Hitler to try art school again instead of starting a world war and putting millions into death camps? Or is this "subversion" more active and violent?
it goes both ways. those who try to disastrously subvert others as part of their utility get less moral consideration.