= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
muflax comments on Can the Chain Still Hold You? - 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 (354)
I think this is wrong, though that's a clever point regarding outbreeding as a reason for decreased slavery. Even if that's true, it's done and gone, a sunk cost. The fact that there are far fewer slaves, a much lower proportion, and no legal slavery is what we should be concerned about.
I don't understand what you mean. What's the sunk cost here?
Luke was making a point that outlawing slavery has ended an institution that has existed throughout much of recorded history, but that's disingenuous, I think, because there are more slaves than there ever were. I don't see how changing the legal status of an institution, without changing the actual practice (in fact, making it more widespread) has improved the situation. It reminds me of war-against-drugs rhetoric.
Another point in favor of disregarding lower proportions: would you feel better if tortured one of my children, if I also made two other children I treated nicely? After all, I would've decreased the rate of tortured children in the world.
If one looks only at absolute numbers, I imagine there are very few things, good or bad, which are not at a historic peak.
This is a restatement of the fundamental meaning of utilitarianism, if one eliminates the rhetorical equation of 'torture' with 'treated nicely'. Given the survey results, I feel fairly confident that he would, yes.
Really? I recall the Less Wrong survey result that most of us are consequentialists. And it's safe to assert that torturing a baby is theoretically compensated by an improvement in the welfare of a sufficient number of preexisting babies (with some hedges thrown in that might prevent torture in practice). But the ethical significance of creating new persons is not clear, especially in light of impossibility results in population ethics. And in light of anthropic difficulties, Eliezer himself leans towards privileging the welfare of already-existing persons.
It is not obvious that over 34% of children in the world right now are being tortured.
You're right, my intuition failed me. I would've to compensate according to the present rate, and of course child torture was a gratuitous example, so I retract it.
"Wrong" or "misleading" seem like more appropriate terms here. There is no indication that Luke isn't being sincere.
You're right. I don't question Luke's sincerity, only his argument.