= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Logos01 comments on A response to "Torture vs. Dustspeck": The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas - 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 (100)
This "weighting of the moral responsibility" thing seems like double counting to me. It isn't something that would make a linear-additive change her mind. And a logarithmic-additive like me doesn't need additional reasoning not to torture.
From the Wikipedia summary, it looks a bit like the criticism of act utilitarianism embedded in the sheriff faced with a riotous mob, but that's a different question. Picking a different moral theory doesn't get you out of the torture v. dust speck issue, but it basically decides whether you stay or leave Omelas.
Not at all. It's acknowledging that the consequences of a given decision extend beyond the immediate result of the decision to the historical inertia of having accepted said decision and how that transforms any society that results from said decision being made.
Example: We disallow the starving to steal bread not because we believe that the starving should starve -- nor even that the bread-sellers "deserve" the bread 'more' than the starving. We disallow it because of the impact that allowing it would have on our society. My argument rests entirely on the fact that we must acknowledge, in making the selection between the two, not just the immediate results of our decisions, but the ways in which our decisions will alter what is considered "morally responsible" thereafter.
If and only if we exclusively consider the immediate results, certainly. But my entire argument rests on the notion that solely considering the immediate results is insufficient to properly considering the consequences of the decision.
I am confused. Why do you believe the notion of "getting out of the issue" relevant to this discussion? I explicitly stated that it was stipulated as incontrovertible that the issue was unavoidable.
I see. We did, in fact, take away different things from the story. I was referring to the story's depiction of the suffering of widespread individuals from the knowledge that their happiness -- or "lack of suffering" -- existed at the expense of another person. I.e.; I was attempting to note that there were secondary consequences that bore consideration. I was not making inferences about act/rule utilitarianism, or criticisms therein.
You think the torture-choosers aren't including this already? Because I assumed they were, and it didn't change their result.
I was only trying to explain why I don't think the story of Omelas is relevant.
I so far haven't seen evidence that you are, either. All discussion I have seen previously on the topic discussed how the torture compared to the dust-specks directly, and at that solely in terms of which was the greater total suffering amount.
I see. As I said; we have taken different things away from the story, because I did not take its reference as bearing on the topic of "getting out of the issue" at all.
As you said, ideas have momentum. I'm not sure if it's an expression of human cognitive bias or human moral plasticity. But it is the case that talking about whether to torture a person makes torturing someone more likely. Because evil is especially intractable when it is banal.
But those are reasons not to have the conversation. At all. If that's what you believe, you shouldn't have resurrected the topic because it involves a secret man is "not ready to know."
None of this is a reason to decide that suffering does not add linearly. And that's the only interesting question in the hypo. Because everyone already agrees that choosing either would be immoral if there were no forced choice. And everything you say about choosing to torture is just as true about choosing to dust-speck, except that it is totally impossible for us to dust-speck, given our current capacities.
In short, you seem to want to avoid the question of linear-suffering entirely. That's why the criticism of "getting out of the issue" could have any bite at all.
Citation, please? I have seen evidence that this is true of actual instances of torture. I have also seen evidence that this is true of cases where a person has written "I will torture". I have never seen evidence to support the idea that discussing the notion of torture causes rise in the rates of torture-incidences. (I am giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming you do not mean this in the 'magical thinking' sense.)
None of that is relevant to the question of linear vs. logarithmic quantification of suffering, yet they are all questions raised by the hypothesis -- a direct falsification of your claim of that contrast being the "only interesting question" in the hypothesis.
How do you figure? I am unable to conceive of a way for this statement to be valid. Enlighten me.
What? I seem to want nothing of the sort. I even allowed for the stipulation of linear-additive suffering as a means of demonstrating that it was uninteresting to the topic at hand; the argument by myself that the refusal to acknowledge the non-immediate consequences of either option was grounds for invalidating the answers thus far given.
Please stop using that phrase. It's putting words into my mouth and they just are NOT applicable to me or my argument whatsoever. It is patently dishonest of you to keep doing that.
Just stop.
Cites
See, e.g., the conventional wisdom that the show 24 made implementation of torture more politically feasible.
Look, people keep telling you that you are trying to fight the hypo. You admit the essential elements of this charge. That's fine with me. Some hypothetical questions are not worth engaging.