fubarobfusco comments on Ambitious utilitarians must concern themselves with death - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Mitchell_Porter 25 October 2012 10:41AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (13)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 25 October 2012 01:36:55PM 6 points [-]

The first thing is that to create a life is to create a death. A life ends. And while the end of a life may not be its most important moment, it reminds us that a life is a whole.

This sounds like a vacuously "deep" assertion. What would the negation mean — "A life is not a whole"? A life is part of something larger? A life is more than one thing?

Comment author: janos 25 October 2012 02:48:37PM 1 point [-]

One good negation is "the value/intrinsic utility of a life is the sum of the values/intrinsic utilities of all the moments/experiences in it, evaluated without reference to their place/context in the life story, except inasmuch as is actually part of that moment/experience".

The "actually" gets traction if people's lives follow narratives that they don't realize as they're happening, but such that certain narratives are more valuable than others; this seems true.

Comment author: khafra 25 October 2012 08:08:23PM 0 points [-]

When I think about having children, and I wonder if they'd be happy, overall, I visualize my own childhood and think about ways it could be different; and I think about my adulthood and how my childhood affected it. I don't remember ever thinking about the aging and death of my counterfactual kids; or how the process of senescence and death--which I have no subjective idea about--would affect the total utility of their lifespan.