= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on No One Knows Stuff - 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 (46)
I hadn't even considered the possibility that your definition might lead to a 'utilitarianism' that is not consequentialist. In some circles, the two terms are used interchangeably. Sounds akin to 'rule utilitarianism', but more interesting - the right action is one that maximizes expected utility, regardless of its actual consequences. Does that sound like a good enough characterization?
I would still be prepared to call an agent "utilitarian" if it operated via maximising expected utility - even if its expectations turned out to be completely wrong, and its actions were far from those that would have actually maximised utility.
Humans are often a bit like this. They "expect" that hoarding calories is a good idea - and so that is what they do. Actually this often turns out to be not so smart. However, this flaw doesn't make humans less utilitarian in my book - rather they have some bad priors - and they are wired-in ones that are tricky to update.