= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS 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)
I'm saying that dust-specks are practically infinitessimal comparatively, and that's in direct comparison. Ergo; a nearly or potentially truly infinite number of dust-speckings would be required to equal one torturing for fifty years, just in terms of direct suffering.
If we were to include the fact that such a torturing would result in the total personality destruction of several reconstructed psyches over the period of that 50 years, I don't necessarily know that such a torture couldn't rightly be called effectively infinite suffering for a single individual.
In terms solely of the immediate and direct suffering, certainly. In terms of that suffering and the other consequences -- individual self-determination, for example; or social productivity costs, etc., even an infinite number of dust-speckings begins to become insufficient to the task of equalling a single fifty-year torture. How much those additional elements 'count' as compared to the suffering alone is a question which is not immediately available to simple calculation; we have no means of converting the various forms of utility into a single comparable unit.
We're already comparing two unimaginably large numbers against one another. For example; the adjustment of 3^^^3 to 3^^^^3 -- how would you decide on the torture vs. dust-speckings if we did the same to torture? What number of years of torture would need to "exceed" 3^^^3 dust-speckings? 51? 500? 50^50?
Why do you concede this? All the suffering you list after this is just as direct.
Saying that torture-without-most-of-the-things-that-make-it-wrong is not so bad might be true, but it isn't useful.
None of the things I listed afterwards were "suffering" at all. "Suffering" is not "the absence of pleasure" -- it is "the antithesis of pleasure". "Utility" is not synonymous with "enjoyment" or "pleasure". (Also, please do recall that hedonistic utilitarianism is far from the only form of utilitarianism in existence.)
What.. ? Just... who are you reading in these threads? I am finding myself more and more convinced that you are responding to the writings of someone other than me. You seem to have a persistent habit of introducing notions to our discussions -- in a manner as though you were responding to something I had written -- that just bear in no way whatsoever to anything I have written or implied by my writings.
Why is this?
I'll concede that suffering might not be the right word. But everything later in that sentence are essential parts of why torture is wrong. If torture didn't imply those things (i.e. wasn't torture), then it would be the right choice compared to dust-specks.
Of course those things are essential parts of why torture is wrong. They would have to be, for my argument to be valid.
Are you simply unaware that the conventional wisdom here on Less Wrong is that the proper answer is to choose to torture one person for fifty years rather than dust-speck 3^^^3 people?
Yes, that is the conventional wisdom. I agree with you that it is wrong, because the features of torture you describe are why the badness quality of torture cannot be achieved in the sum of huge amounts of a lesser badness.
You seem to think that someone could think dust-specks was the right answer without taking into account those essential parts of torture. Otherwise, why do you think that the secondary effects of allowing torture were not considered in the original debate?
Because I read the original submission and its conversation thread.
This is a bit of Meta-Comment about commenting:
As you noted in your post, people in the original thread objected to choosing torture for reasons that basically reduce to the "non-additive badness" position. For me, that position is motivated by the badness of torture you described in your post. So I read the other commenters charitably to include consideration of the sheer wrongness of torture. I simply can't see why one would pick dust-specks without that consideration.
Now you say I'm reading them too charitably. I've been told before that I do that too much. I'm not sure I agree.