= 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'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.