nyan_sandwich comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1691)
Is this a reference to the "All deontologists can be dutch-booked, all consequentialists choose torture" issue?
Can all deontologists be dutch booked? Then it means something other than what I'm thinking of. (unless I'm confused. I haven't though this thru)
Not all consequentialists choose torture either. (in duck specks I assume). Pretty sure all utilitarians do tho.
The way I'm using those words is essentially consequentialism=expected utility maximization with a utility function that does not prescribe specific behaviours or thought patterns. and deontologism=holding some non-EU set of ethical/behavioural rules as fundamental (usally stuff like "moral duty to do X in Y situation" and whatnot)
As far as I can tell, everyone who thinks suffering is additive is obligated to choose torture. Only if one denies that suffering can always be compared in an additive way is one free to reject torture and choose specks.
That means one's evaluations of degree of suffering inherently have a discontinuity somewhere. Thus, one is vulnerable to being dutch-booked/money-pumped by a sufficiently powerful and cruel adversary.
If this discussion about the possible additive nature of suffering/utility is alien to one's moral reasoning, one might be able to escape the dilemma.
I'm not sure I understand why you use the word "discontinuity" here. In mathematical language, it's easy to have a continuous function of perpetually-rising value that never reaches a certain value - just put an asymptote.
If instances of dust specks are being counted in this manner, it's pretty easy to have the asymptote always be inferior to the torture-time.
...but I'm probably misunderstanding part of the discussion, on second thought.
This post makes the point in more detail.
No, your answer is roughly what I was getting at. There is no reason a utility function has to be additive in human suffering.