= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Konkvistador comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012) - 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 (1430)
Fine make it illegal for this to be done except by experts.
No, why?
We already give sadists lots of rights to psychologically and physical abuse people when this is done with consent or when we don't feel like being morally consistent or when there is some societal benefit to be had.
For your own safety, in every regard that such people could threaten it.
Well, I've always thought that it's enormously and horribly wrong of us.
I don't think society considers that a valid reason for discrimination.
Also please remember surgeons can do nasty things to me without flinching if they wanted to, people do also occasionally have such fears since we even invoke this trope in horror movies.
I generally agree.
But on the other hand I think we should give our revealed preference some weight as well, remember we are godshatter, maybe we should just accept that perhaps we don't care as much about other people's suffering as we'd like to believe or say we do.
Yes society might, if society takes into account that it loathes most people with those characteristics to begin with.
Maybe if we do bother to self-modify in some direction along one of our "shard"'s vectors, it could as well be a direction we see as more virtuous? Making ourselves care as much as we'd privately want to, at least to try and see how it goes?
Revealed preferences are precisely what we end up doing and actually desire once we get in a certain situation. Why not work it out the other way around? How can you be sure maximum utility is going with this shard line and not the other?
Because it sounds good? To 21st century Westerners?
My current values simply DO point in the direction of rewriting parts of my utility function like I suggest, and not like you suggest.
Sure, might as well stick with this reason. I haven't yet seen an opposing one that's convincing to me.
When currently thinking in far mode about this you like the idea, but seeing it in practice might easily horrify you.
In any case when I was talking about maximising utility, I was talking about you maximising your utility. You can easily be mistaken about what does and dosen't do that.
I say the same about the general shape of your modern-society-with-legalized-infanticide.
And you are right to say so!
Uh huh, thanks. The difference is, I'm quite a bit more distrustful of your legal infanticide's perspectives than you're distrustful of my personal self-modification's perspectives.